Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHOREHAM AND LANCING)

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the rural district of Worthing, presented by Sir Keith Joseph; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Intensive Animal Husbandry

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research studies have been made by his Department into the techniques of intensive animal husbandry.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): Responsibility for research on agricul-

tural problems lies in the main with the Agricultural Research Council and not with my Department. The activities of my Department in this field are concerned with experiments at the experimental husbandry farms and some surveys, mainly by the National Agricultural Advisory Service.
I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT further details of experiments undertaken by my Department.

Miss Quennell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that producers complain that they have to go abroad to obtain the latest information, generally to the Netherlands or France? Will he do everything he can to influence these bodies to make as widely available as possible the result of their discoveries and researches?

Mr. Soames: I think they will find that there is a good deal of information available through N.A.A.S. and from our experimental husbandry farms. If my hon. Friend has a specific point in mind, I shall be grateful if she will draw it to my attention.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Can the Minister say whether his experiments have shown that these methods have an effect upon taste and also upon the health of the persons eating the beasts or poultry?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir.

Following is the information:
Experiments on the rearing of cattle on the barley beef system were conducted at five


experimental husbandry farms during 1960–61, and work on various aspects of this system has continued at three centres. The stock has been housed under normal conditions of light, space and ventilation. Trials with milk and milk substitutes in the feeding of veal calves were done at five farms in 1958–59 and a further small scale observation study of the so-called "broiler veal" method was carried out at Great House Experimental Husbandry Farm in 1960. Experiments on battery poultry or poultry on deep litter have been done at three farms and have included studies of different rations and methods of housing. The results of all such trials are published in the Farm Reports and in other publications of my Department The N.A.A.S. has not done any experiments on broiler poultry.
The N.A.A.S. as part of its day-to-day activities has also for advisory purposes conducted many surveys into various aspects of intensive livestock husbandry including barley beef production and poultry housing.

Allied Ironfounders Limited

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what shares of Allied Ironfounders Limited he holds or has recently held in his official capacity on trust for universities or colleges; what precautions he takes to ensure that moneys held by him on trust for public or charitable purposes are not invested in companies which make subscriptions or donations to a political party or for party political objects; and whether it is his practice as a trustee for such purposes to buy or keep the shares of a company which to his knowledge makes such subscriptions or donations.

Mr. Soames: So far as shares held for universities and colleges are concerned, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 27th April. So far as concerns the comparatively small amounts I hold as a trustee or on behalf of other trusts, the considerations that weigh with me are the soundness of the stock and level of the return.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the stock is sound when the business of the company is to make baths and cookers and it wastes shareholders' money in party political contributions?

Mr. Soames: In examining this, the criteria by which shares are thought to be suitable to be held as trustee stock are the level of return on the investment and the economic viability of the

company concerned, not the political activities of the companies in which stocks are held.

Beef

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the forecast annual decline in beef imports from the Argentine to little or nothing within a decade, he will take steps to encourage home and commonwealth suppliers to fill the gap.

Mr. Soames: The Argentine Secretary of State for Agriculture has said, I understand, that if Argentine producers did not increase the cattle population, then exports would fall. The Argentine Government, however, have not given Her Majesty's Government any long-term forecast of such a fall. Home producers have already been encouraged by Price Review determinations in recent years. There are at present no restrictions on imports from Commonwealth countries and they are fully aware of the requirements of our market.

Mr. Farr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of present conditions, this is not the time to introduce the standard quantity concept for beef? Will he further agree that, instead of introducing what might be a curb on home production, just the opposite, a stimulant, should now be applied?

Mr. Soames: We have given two increases. The first was in 1961 when we gave a 10s. a cwt. increase, and the second in this Review of 3s. a cwt.—quite apart from the alteration upwards in the calf subsidies which happens over the years. In considering the standard quantity, what we have to do, as a great trading nation with obligations to our consumers, our farmers and people overseas, is to strike the right balance, as the 1947 Act recognised that any Government must do, between home production and supplies from overseas, including the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend knows that there is no question of introducing standard quantities during the current agricultural year.

Mr. Peart: In view of the importance of this matter to home prices and the effect which it has had on the home production of meat, why is it that the Minister did not understand that this long-


term trend with the Argentine would happen? Surely we have an agricultural attaché there? Was information forthcoming from him? Or have we no agricultural attaché there?

Mr. Soames: We are in the very closest contact with both the Argentine Government and the Meat Board in the Argentine. There is no lack of communication between us. There is a shortage this year compared with last year, when they sent a great deal more than the market could take at an economic price. There are bound to be fluctuations in a commodity such as beef, of which only a very tiny proportion of the total production goes into the world trade. A few thousand tons one way or the other can make all the difference and as a consequence it is inevitable that there can be considerable variations from one year to another.

Mr. Bullard: In laying his long-term plans for future arrangements with other countries, will my right hon. Friend be a little careful not to take too much notice of these forecasts, because when countries forecast that supplies will dry up it very often leads to events which prove to be in exactly the opposite direction?

Mr. Soames: Yes. The difficulty of reconciling some of the forecasts which were put forward in the talks with what we thought to be the probable position was one of the features which led to arrangements not being finally arrived at.

Mr. Peart: May I press the Minister on the position of an attaché? Have we an attaché? On a previous occasion I pressed the Minister about the importance of having information supplied to him by our attachés in different countries. Have we one in the Argentine?

Mr. Soames: We have veterinary officers there, but not attachés.

Mr. Peart: It is not good enough.

Calves (Vaccinations)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vaccinations with strain 19 were given in the last 12 months compared with the previous three years, respectively.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Kitson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that we can be satisfied only when we have 100 per cent. inoculated with strain 19? Ought we not to consider working towards these lines, as they are now doing in Southern Ireland?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that 100 per cent. vaccination is a most estimable objective to attain, if we can. We are making progress towards this objective, but we have a long way to go.

Following are the figures:


Calendar Year



Number of calves vaccinated under Official scheme


1960
…
…
…
421,665


1961
…
…
…
436,309


1962*
…
…
…
677,336


1963
…
…
…
582,919


* Vaccinations were given free as from 1st May, 1962.

Brucellosis

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when it is intended to introduce a programme to eliminate brucellosis; what estimate he has made of the cost; and how many years there would be before the country was free from infection.

Mr. Soames: I cannot at present estimate accurately how much time or money it would take to eradicate this disease. A survey of brucellosis in dairy herds has been carried out, and will be published by the Autumn. I intend to review this question, including the veterinary manpower available and the likely cost, when I have received this report.

Mr. Kitson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he consider starting an eradication programme on a regional basis, as we did with T.B., because I think that we are getting very much left behind in this and that we should start an eradication scheme as soon as possible?

Mr. Soames: When we see the whole picture in this country, which we shall


be able to do from the survey which is being carried out, we can decide whether we should proceed on a national basis or region by region.

Mr. Vane: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that brucellosis eradication is being given at least the same priority now as it was a few years ago, not least because there is in this a hazard to human health as well as to animal health?

Mr. Soames: Yes, but the incidence which we think we shall find from the survey, coupled with the fact that over 96 per cent. of our milk is pasteurised, is a very different situation on both counts from that which exists in many countries which put more effort into the eradication of brucellosis. In recent years we have concentrated the efforts of our veterinary staff on many things—on tuberculosis, on fowl pest and on swine fever. We have mounted an all-out attack on these diseases. I can assure my hon. Friend that what we are doing in regard to brucellosis will be kept up until we take a decision on the major point.

Mr. Kitson: I beg to give notice that, owing to the importance of this matter, I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Factory Farming

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many factory farms he has visited; if he is satisfied with the conditions under which animals are reared in them for table use; and if the food produced by these methods has the nutritional value of that grown in the normal way.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into cruelty to birds and animals resulting from intensive methods of animal farming, and to report on the nutritive value of food produced under these conditions.

Mr. Soames: I have visited a number of farms where intensive systems of husbandry were practised. In the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) on 20th April, I announced the setting up of a Technical Committee, which is more appropriate than a Royal Commission to this type of inquiry. Such work as has been done

in this country has revealed no evidence to suggest that intensive methods of rearing reduce the nutritional value of the product.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling in the country that factory farming aborts the God-given process of photosynthesis by supplying animals with drugs which fatten them and at the same time could render man less responsive to those drugs in his hour of need? The right hon. Gentleman is doing this in order to produce low quality meat and big profits.

Mr. Soames: I know that the hon. Gentleman holds this view. All I can say is that the researches which have been carried out hitherto do not lend support to what he has said.

Mr. Brockway: Will the terms of reference of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee include the allegations of cruelty to animals which are made in Ruth Harrison's book, "Animal Machines", and will he very carefully consider whether callousness towards animal cruelty may not lead to indifference towards human cruelty?

Mr. Soames: The object of the Committee will be to advise me whether certain standards for animal husbandry should be laid down. The terms of reference are very wide. This is not a question of taking allegations of any particular type of cruelty by any particular person; the Committee's job will be to advise me in the broadest sense as to whether it is necessary to lay down standards of animal husbandry for intensive livestock production.

Mr. Bullard: I recognise that there may be dangers and cruelty involved in keeping animals in too close quarters, but will my right hon. Friend discourage the use of the term "factory farm", because, so far as I know, there is no definition of it and often an animal kept in a small, warm, well-bedded quarters can be a lot more healthy and health-giving than one kept out on an open moor?

Mr. Soames: I have absolutely no doubt at all that the systems under which our animals are kept are such that the animals can thrive, and they would not thrive if they were suffering. If they did not thrive, there would be


no profitability in the operation. On the other hand, in view of the rapid growth, not of factory farming—I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not quite know what the interpretation given to the term "factory farming" by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) would be—but of intensive livestock production covering a broad field, I think that it is time to consider whether it is necessary to lay down standards.

Mr. Peart: In view of the importance of this matter, will the Minister say when the Technical Committee will submit its report to him and when the House will be informed of its findings?

Mr. Soames: No, I cannot do that at this moment. I hope to announce very shortly the names of the members of the Committee.

Mr. Rankin: Although I recognise and welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is taking very short steps towards the point of view that I enunciated, may I ask him if he realises that the Technical Committee is quite insufficient in this case, because there is the human aspect, which might be obscured in these investigations? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider widening the Committee a little to incorporate in its membership members of the community, and Members of the House if necessary, who are interested in this problem?

Mr. Soames: When I announce the membership of the Committee, I believe that the House will feel that it is a sensible membership.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take the steps necessary to ensure that food produced at factory farms is so designated when exposed for sale in shops.

Mr. Soames: No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is now going backwards. Does not he remember the time when shop windows contained such notices as "Scotch fed" and "prime cuts"? We designated food because we were proud of its origin. Is the refusal to designate food from factory farms due to the fact that we do not like the public to know the origin of this type of food?

Mr. Soames: No. First, I think that the hon. Gentleman would find it very difficult to write an interpretation from a legislative point of view of what a factory farm is. Secondly and more importantly, the studies and research which have been done so far do not lead us to believe that there is any difference in the nutritive value of the food produced under different systems which would warrant us bringing in the very complicated arrangements for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mrs. Butler: But surely people have a right to know what they are buying and eating. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing consumer demand for this type of designation? Will he look at the matter again, study the problems involved and report back to the House?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. I must tell the hon. Lady that from the studies which have already taken place there is no evidence to show the difference between the nutritive values of food produced under different conditions which would warrant such a proposition.

Forestry (Land)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that he is acquiring enough land to support the forestry programme outlined in his statement on 24th July, 1963; to what extent progress is now being made towards solving the problems of conflicting interests for land use such as that between forestry and sheep farming; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Soames: I consider the Forestry Commission should be able to acquire enough land to carry out its programme. At the end of 1963 the reserve of plantable land was about 300,000 acres. Relations with the farming community have much improved over the last few years, though there are bound to be occasional sources of friction. Land to be purchased by the Commission is always cleared by the Agricultural Departments before acquisition, and the interests of hill farming in general are taken into account.

Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he remembers that in his


statement in July last year he gave a programme for 1964–73 in which he estimated, as we understand from the technical journals and from the Ministry, that we would need to acquire 80,000 acres of land per annum to meet this programme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to my information, we are not meeting it? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage more of this development which has been encouraged in the past? Will he consider the imaginative idea of helping local authorities in industrial areas to plant on some of the old pit sites and to use soil from the great road-making areas like the M.1 and M.6 to cover the pit sites? Will the right hon. Gentleman also, as we on this side of the House did when we were in power, give grants to private owners to make this use of their land?

Mr. Soames: I announced for the decade 1964–73 that the Forestry Commission will aim at planting a further 450,000 acres, but this does not mean over ten years an annual acquisition of 80,000 acres a year. If acquisitions continue at their present rate, coupled with the reserve of 300,000 acres, which I agree are not in the best areas and would not all come into this decade, I think that we should have enough land to carry out that programme. As for the hon. Member's detailed question about planting for specific purposes in specific areas, I will look at what he has said, and if he likes to give me more details and develop this thought I will consider it.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is it not a fact that the relationship between the Forestry Commission and sheep-raising interests is now very much better than it used to be?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. I believe this to be so. We have, of course, noted this and hope it will continue to do so to the greatest extent possible.

Forestry Exhibition, Blackbushe

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts he is making to draw public attention to the Forestry Exhibition on 17th and 18th June at Blackbushe, near Camberley, in view

of the fact that this is the first exhibition of its kind to be held in Great Britain since 1888.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Forestry Commission has been in touch with national organisations concerned with forestry, land use, amenity and the countryside who have arranged to publicise the exhibition among their members; posters and leaflets have been widely distributed, and Press and B.B.C. announcements are being made. The co-operation of bodies who might bring it to the attention of overseas visitors is also being sought.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that both sides of the House are grateful to the Government for encouraging this exhibition. Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that it is 80 years since we had such an exhibition? Will he see that the maximum publicity is given to it and suggest that those in the House who are interested in forestry should visit this shop-window of forestry, an industry which Britain really needs in order to catch up with the deforestation of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, Sir, and I hope that as many visitors as possible will see the exhibition.

Mr. Snow: Will the exhibition include information for the public about access to forestry land—having due regard to fire risks—bearing in mind that there has been criticism recently of the unduly restrictive attitude towards the public obtaining such access?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hope that the Forestry Commission will note what the hon. Member has said.

Sausages (Meat Content)

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking on the complaint sent to him on 24th March by Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation regarding the low meat content of sauages on sale in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: A letter was sent to the corporation on 2nd April drawing its attention to the action taken by other food and drugs authorities in similar circumstances.

Mr. Short: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this sausage had a meat content of only 46 per cent.? Does he think that good enough? Does the hon. Gentleman not think the time has come when a minimum meat content should be laid down or that at any rate the package should show exactly what it contains so that people may know what they are eating? If I send the hon. Gentleman a sausage and another to his right hon. Friend, will he think about it?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I refer the hon. Member to the original Answer. There have been successful prosecutions under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, when analysis has shown the meat content of pork and beef sausages to be less than 65 per cent. and 50 per cent., respectively. The authorities have instituted prosecutions on that basis. There have been eight successful prosecutions in respect of pork sausages and four in respect of beef sausages. As the hon. Member will know, there are difficulties in devising standards to lay down minimum contents for pork and beef sausages.

Mr. Popplewell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Old-Age Pensioners (Milk)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the increased price, he will take steps to enable old-age pensioners to receive one pint of milk per day at a reduced rate.

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The Government considers that the right way to help pensioners is by cash payments, rather than by benefits in kind, and the pension and assistance improvements made last May took these payments to a higher real value than ever before.

Mrs. Butler: Since milk is such an easy and effective means of alleviating malnutrition from which many elderly people suffer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he will not do this? Is he aware that where charitable organisations have issued milk free at Christmas it has been received with quite pathetic gratitude by many old people? Why

should they not have it every day all the year round at 2½d. a pint as long as the present pension remains inadequate?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady talks about the present pension being inadequate. I should not like to trespass on the field of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but I believe that the rises given over the last decade or so in retirement pensions have more than taken account of any rise in the cost of living. As to the inadequacy of the food, I notice that a recent publication by an independent research worker said that there was a general rise in the diet of pensioners between 1950 and 1960.

Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that there is no need to help these old-age pensioners because they are extremely well-off and their diet is adequate? Does not that show the right hon. Gentleman's complete misunderstanding of how far 57s. 6d. a week will go, and is it not another example of one Ministry refusing to face the situation when the price of a commodity such as milk goes up?

Mr. Soames: Far from saying that nothing needs to be done, I am saying that this Government have done a lot over the years and prefer to do it by cash payment rather than by benefits in kind.

Live Animal Exports

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on the welfare of livestock exported for slaughter.

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. Undoubtedly the best way, from all points of view, of exporting meat is in carcase form; and the trend from live exports towards this is what the Government hope to see develop as far as possible and as soon as possible.
In 1957, the Government, in order to safeguard the welfare of cattle then being exported to the Continent, negotiated with France, Western Germany, Belgium and Holland the so-called "Balfour Assurances". Since then, trade in pigs and sheep has also developed. My right hon. Friends and I have decided to seek similar arrangements for


their welfare. The interested countries have already been approached.
Exports of cattle for slaughter to the Continent are already subject to licence. As from 8th June, all exports of cattle, sheep and pigs for slaughter will be subject to licence. Licences will be granted only to those countries able to give assurances on the lines negotiated for cattle in 1957.

Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend accept my grateful thanks for this great move forward to ensure the welfare of livestock destined for slaughter? Will he also make it quite clear that this procedure will absolutely prevent any further export of sheep that might eventually find their way to Algeria for ritual slaughter, which was the original cause of the outcry over the whole of this business?
In addition, will my right hon. Friend try to negotiate with other countries some change in their regulations by which they are willing to take meat for fresh consumption providing it arrives on the hoof whereas they insist on it being manufactured if it arrives dead? This is a very great obstacle in the way of transferring export from live to carcase, and will my right hon. Friend take steps to negotiate an improvement in the arrangements?

Mr. Soames: As to the assurances which we are seeking, they are, firstly, that the animals will be slaughtered within 100 kilometres from the point of landing; secondly, that they must not be re-exported; thirdly, that they will be suitably penned, fed and watered while awaiting slaughter; and fourthly, that they will be slaughtered by electric stunning or by captive bolt pistol. We shall be prepared to allow the export of animals to any country that will give us these assurances.

Mr. Delargy: Will the right hon. Gentleman discourage the export of beef from this country, in view of the fact that supplies here are scarce and expensive and also that farmers are being paid a subsidy for beef by the taxpayer?

Mr. Soames: Our arrangements are that we have a free market for foodstuffs, and meat in particular, which, by and large, has enormous advantages for

this country, and we would not lightly tamper with the existence of that free market which involves a good deal of importation and some exportation.

Mr. Delargy: What about the subsidies?

Mr. Kitson: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, while this arrangement may be greatly welcomed by English pigs and sheep, it will not be much comfort to pigs and sheep coming from Southern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend see that this matter is raised in the Council of Europe so that we can get some standardisation?

Mr. Soames: We are at the moment proceeding in the Council of Europe to try to get internationally-agreed arrangements.

Meat

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will make a statement on the estimated quantities of meat imports from traditional suppliers for the period June, 1964, to December, 1964.

Mr. Soames: It is difficult to estimate with any precision what supplies will be, and I am not in any case in a position to give figures for individual countries. But comparing the second half of 1964 with the first, I would expect no further fall in total imports of fresh and chilled beef; a rise in frozen beef; a considerable fall in the lamb where we depend far less on imports in the second half of the year; and little change in our relatively insignificant imports of pork. Most of these imports are likely to come from the same countries as in recent years, though not necessarily in the same proportions.

Mr. Peart: In view of a previous answer relating to obtaining information through agricultural attachés, may I ask whether it is not rather absurd that this information should be obtained from veterinary officers, who deal with animal disease and have no influence on commercial policy? Can the Minister say what is the position of attachés in the various countries? If the right hon. Gentleman is to be more precise about his information he must have attachés in our main supply countries.

Mr. Soames: What the hon. Gentleman should say, and what in justice I would accept, is that we should be satisfied that we are getting the information we require. Whether this involves the need for an agricultural attaché in a particular country surely depends upon the decision of the Government. What is essential is that we should get the information. We are getting this information. Further, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Governments of our major overseas meat-supply countries—the Argentine, Australia, the Irish Republic, New Zealand, Uruguay and Yugoslavia—to whom, as I said on 20th February, we were making representations to this effect, have agreed that their representatives should participate with the United Kingdom officials in a meat study group. This group will review regularly the United Kingdom market situation with reference to levels of imports and will discuss the implications relating thereto.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is it a fact that what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said has little bearing upon the Argentine? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is particularly important that we should have veterinary officers in the Argentine because of the great problem which exists with regard to foot-and-mouth disease? Is it not a fact that very often it is far more important to have a veterinary person there than to have someone who calls himself an agricultural attaché?

Mr. Soames: We not only get our advice through veterinary officers but from our embassy and through our contacts with the Argentine Meat Board.

Mr. Peart: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if we are to have a commercial assessment we must have commercial representatives, and that in the sphere of meat imports the man to do it is the agricultural attaché? Is it not alarming that we have no attaché in the Argentine?

Meat Industry (Report)

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when Her Majesty's Government will announce their conclusions on the Verdon-Smith Report on the meat industry.

Mr. Soames: I will make a statement on the Government's views as soon as possible.

Mr. Peart: When is "as soon as possible"? Is it after the election or when? The Minister has to be prodded over and over again on this matter.

Mr. Soames: I do not accept that Ministers have to be prodded over and over again.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman has to be prodded.

Mr. Soames: I have a rooted objection to being prodded. This Committee reported on a subject which covers a very wide field indeed. I told the House—and I think the hon. Gentleman approved at the time, if I remember rightly—that we asked the interested parties, which number some 100 or more organisations, to give their views on the suggestions made in the report by the end of April. A number of these organisations have asked for a little more time before sending in their observations. I think the hon. Gentleman will also agree that, when making major decisions on these important matters, it is necessary that we should be sure that we have all the views of the interests concerned before we reach conclusions. As soon as I have obtained all these views the Government will study them and will make a report.

Fish (Rail Transport)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the proposals to curtail the train services for the distribution of fish and the economic repercussions this would have on the industry; and what representations he has made on the matter.

Mr. Soames: I understand that the Railways Board has put forward some proposals to the trade, and these are still under discussion. I have no powers to intervene.

Mr. Hoy: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Railways Board has also announced the date for the cessation of these services, and that without these services there cannot be an adequate distribution of fish through the wholesale merchants association?


This will mean economic disaster for this sector of the industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, use his influence with the Minister of Transport to see that these services are not cut off until consultations take place and an alternative form of delivery is formulated by the people concerned?

Mr. Soames: My information is not the same as the hon. Gentleman's, namely, that a date has been definitely fixed at which services will be brought to an end. My information is that there have been preliminary discussions, that a meeting was held in April between representatives of the railways and the trade, and that these consultations are continuing. I do not believe that any firm date has been announced; in fact, I am sure that no firm date has been announced. As to the second part of the supplementary question, of course my right hon. Friend and I will pay attention to what, within our remit, we should do, but not to other matters which are purely the affair of the Railways Board.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is not interested in the future of the fishing industry and that he is leaving it entirely to the Ministry of Transport and the Railways Board to close down the transport system which supplies fish for which he is responsible to the country? Surely his Department should be represented at those discussions?

Mr. Soames: I did not say that; neither did I infer it, and the hon. Gentleman knows it not to be so.

Milk

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his plans to ensure that an adequate supply of milk will be produced for the rest of this year.

Mr. Soames: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) on 5th May last.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the National Dairymen's Association stated on 4th May that if the weather this summer is unkind to us there will

be a shortage of milk during the autumn? In so far as his plans do not cope with any bad weather which may be experienced during the summer and autumn, will he look at this problem?

Mr. Soames: We had extremely bad weather in 1963–64 and, despite that, the monthly quantity of milk going to manufacture never fell below 34 million gallons or 26 per cent. of liquid sales. I do not think there is any justification for thinking that there will be a shortage of liquid milk.

Mr. Vane: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that to keep on raising alarms about a possible shortage of milk in this country does no service whatever, particularly when one bears in mind the very large margin in the month last year when supplies dropped to their lowest?

Mr. Soames: I agree that there are ample supplies, and I have seen no figures which lead me to believe that there is substance in these alarms.

Agricultural Apprenticeship Scheme

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will detail the steps he is taking this year, in support of the agricultural industry, to promote interest in the agricultural apprentice scheme, in order to reverse the trend apparent last year when there was a drop of about 10 per cent. in the number of new apprentices; and what steps he is now taking to see that the provisions of the Industrial Training Act are applied to agriculture.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Although there was a small drop last summer in the number of new entrants to the agricultural apprenticeship scheme, the full twelve-month figures show a small increase in 1963 over the previous year. My Department continues to give the scheme active support, particularly by making it known to suitable farmers and farm workers. In reply to the second part of the Question, the hon. Member will be aware that, under the Industrial Training Act, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is responsible for establishing industrial training boards, and I understand that there have been discussions with the National Farmers'


Union for England and Wales on the subject of a training board for agriculture.

Mr. Prentice: But are the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend playing no part in these discussions about the establishment of a training board for agriculture? Can he give the House no idea, for example, when such a board is likely to be appointed? In the meantime, is his Department not taking extra steps this summer in relation to this year's school-leavers to try to get a greater proportion of them introduced to the agricultural apprenticeship scheme, which is such a small scheme in relation to the size of the industry?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who is seeking the advice of the Central Training Council about progress made. In reply to the second part, of course, we wish to encourage the maximum use of the scheme and the maximum amount of effort in it, but, as he will appreciate, there are difficulties.

Mr. Snow: Will the Minister consider, within the context of this Question, the need to encourage this scheme in the light of the report which I sent this morning to his right hon. Friend about a case in my constituency where there has been one eviction and 11 more additional evictions of farm workers from their houses as a result of the sale of one farm house? It is a very serious matter, and does not this sort of thing discourage recruitment into the industry as a whole?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is a separate question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Redundant Workers

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to provide that those employees who seek other employment in advance of their being made redundant shall be entitled to the benefits of the resettlement scheme.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. J. B. Godber: Workers who are in employment but are due to become redundant

shortly may be considered for assistance under the Resettlement Scheme if they obtain other work away from home.

Mr. Farr: I am delighted to hear that from my right hon. Friend, but is he aware that I have been in correspondence with his hon. Friend about a case in my constituency of a man who showed a lot of initiative in getting a job before he was overtaken by events but whose proper claims for expenses in this connection were turned down because he had not waited until he had been declared redundant?

Mr. Godber: I have looked at this case, and I have to tell my hon. Friend that the position, as I understand it, is that this particular employee was not likely to have become redundant. One has to look at these matters very carefully to see what can be done to help in the case of any redundancies or expected redundancies, but, if we widen the scheme too much, it will not succeed.

Mr. John Page: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving more publicity to explain to people how they can qualify for this most useful scheme? My impression is that, in general, people know very little about it.

Mr. Godber: I should be very glad to do anything I can to publicise it more. We publish booklets about it, and I should be very happy to give further publicity anywhere I can. One has to do all one can to facilitate genuine movement, but, of course, in some parts of the country there are those who feel that it would be wrong to do too much in this way because it would have the effect of denuding a part of the country of some of its best workers.

Youth Employment Officers

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Labour what is the average case-load of each youth employment officer.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): It is estimated that, in the present year, the average case-load will be about 550 to 600 young persons reaching the age of 15.

Miss Quennell: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer, but is he


satisfied that, with the growing complexity of training schemes and apprenticeships and the need for correct assessment, there is not an impossible load for the youth employment officer to carry successfully?

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to my hon. Friend in most cases is "Yes". I have given the average load. In some cases, the actual load is well below the average. [HON. MEMBERS: "And above in others."] In many fewer it is above. If circumstances such as my hon. Friend describes arise, my right hon. Friend would be only too anxious to see extra youth employment officers appointed. Since April, 1962, over 80 new posts have been created.

Regional Cost of Living Indices

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Labour what consideration he has given to the publishing of regional cost of living indices, in view of the need for such indices when new wage rates are negotiated by companies moving into development areas.

Mr. Godber: The calculation of separate indices for particular areas was considered in 1951 by the Cost of Living Advisory Committee. The Committee was of the opinion that there would be serious objections to the publication of official indices of retail prices covering different social, economic or regional groups of the community, and recommended that only one official index should be published monthly. This recommendation was accepted by the then Minister of Labour. I have considered the matter again, but I am not satisfied as to the need to take a different view.

Mr. Holt: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again? Is he aware that, as regards London, for instance, it has often been the practice to take into account in settling wages and salaries the greater cost of living in London? In the proper development of a regional policy, having regard to the need to attract firms into areas where there is unemployment now, would not a regional cost of living index be an extremely useful weapon?

Mr. Godber: It is for that reason that I was ready to consider this matter

again, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that there are considerable difficulties here. For instance, although one may talk of London on its own, if one thinks in terms of the London and south-eastern region, there are many areas in the south-eastern part of the region, for instance, where costs are not nearly so high as they are in London. Therefore, one might create more confusion than one eliminated.

Disabled Persons, Leigh

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Labour how many disabled people are unemployed in the Leigh, Atherton, and Tyldesley area.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 20th April, 1964, there were 65 registered disabled persons registered as unemployed at Leigh Employment Exchange and 89 at the Atherton and Tyldesley Employment Exchange.

Mr. Boardman: In view of the number of men in this area who have been medically certified as fit for light work only and the difficulties these men have in finding suitable jobs, will the hon. Gentleman consider making a special appeal to employers in the area to employ as many as possible, in excess of the 3 per cent, which, I think, most people now regard as "phony".

Mr. Whitelaw: I could not accept the last point which the hon. Gentleman makes. I do not believe that people regard the quota as being in any way "phony". What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that our local officers are doing all they can to find suitable openings for unemployed disabled persons both by submitting them for vacancies notified by employers and by making special approaches to employers. The question is also being taken up by the disablement advisory committees and the local employment committees, and their advice is being sought.

Mr. Boardman: Will the hon. Gentleman add his weight to what the local committees are doing? There is great feeling on this matter, and I think that an appeal by the Minister would do an enormous amount of good.

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that what I have said this afternoon will give indications of that support.

Earnings, South-West Region

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Labour what were the average weekly earnings for men aged 21 years and over in the South-West for manufacturing and certain other industries in October 1963, as compared to the national average of £16 14s. 11d.; and by how much per cent. they exceeded those of April 1956 as compared with a national increase of 42 per cent.

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to the first part of the Question is £15 14s. 9d. Information is not available to answer the second part. Figures of average weekly earnings were not calculated on a regional basis until April 1960.

Mr. Digby: Might it not be possible to include figures of this kind for the main regions in the Monthly Digest of Statistics?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall consider what my hon. Friend suggests.

Slough Occupational Hygiene Service

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make funds available to permit the continuance of the work of the Slough Occupational Hygiene Service.

Mr. Godber: No, Sir. The Slough Occupational Hygiene Service did valuable work for industry, but I am satisfied that present demand for such services can be met from other sources. My own responsibility for carrying out work of this kind is met through the Factory Inspectorate.

Mr. Mallalieu: Will the Minister look at this matter again? Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety in trade union circles about it?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I am aware of the concern and, in fact, I shall be discussing the matter with my Industrial Health Advisory Committee tomorrow. I have looked very carefully at it, but I have felt it right that we should try to cover by statutory requirements such things as need to be done. These come under the Factory Inspectorate where the facilities are adequate. Where it becomes a voluntary matter, however, one must rely on such facilities as are available and the Government should not support these.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Industrial Health Service at Slough is not affected by this closure, and could he say how this service is progressing?

Mr. Godber: It is true that the Industrial Health Service at Slough is entirely separate from the Occupational Hygiene Service. In fact, the Industrial Health Service at Slough is prospering very well. At present, it is serving 291 firms with about 25,000 employees involved.

Mr. Brockway: Does not the Minister's reply completely misrepresent the situation? Of course, the Industrial Health Centre is something different, but has not the Occupational Hygiene Centre been making inquiries on the effect on the health of workers of dust, noise and heat? That is a research job and it is very different from the factory inspector's job to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Godber: I have misrepresented nothing whatever. In fact, what I have said is exactly the position. There are, of course, other voluntary facilities in other parts of the country which will—

Mr. Brockway: Two.

Mr. Godber: Yes, but they will provide for the present demand. This is the point. The Factory Inspectorate does all that is necessary where there is a statutory requirement. I shall be very happy to make further statutory requirements in any industry if anyone will show me the need for them.

Mr. Prentice: Is it good enough for the Minister to say that the present demand is small and therefore that the service should close? Is he aware that the effort in occupational hygiene in this country is much less than it is in many other industrial countries? For instance, last year in the city of Detroit alone there were more visits to places of work by the occupational hygiene service than there were in the whole of industry in Britain. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should stimulate the demand in industry and ensure that there is a bigger national effort instead of allowing this centre to close, as he did.

Mr. Godber: I recognise that there is a difficulty between demand and the


need which one would like to see more fully met. In so far as there is a need where there is a statutory requirement, I accept that it is my responsibility. I am prepared to discuss this further with my Industrial Health Advisory Committee, and that is what I am proposing to do this week.

Building Workers, County Durham

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour what number of building and construction workers were registered at employment exchanges in the County of Durham at the latest available date.

Mr. Godber: At 13th April, 4,058 workers whose last employment was in the construction industry were registered as unemployed at employment exchanges in County Durham.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not extraordinary that over 4,000 building and construction workers registered at employment exchanges cannot get a job and yet there is so much work for which they are fitted which requires to be done in the County of Durham? Why not speed up the advance factories? Why not build some more hospitals? Why not build the houses that we require? Why not deal with the slums? In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the Minister of Transport to speed up the road development which has been promised us for so long?

Mr. Godber: We are doing a great deal in all these fields in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. Some more advance factories were announced only last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade. The figure has substantially improved during recent months. However, I accept that it is high and I want to see it much lower.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me what he proposes to do to reduce the figure?

Mr. Godber: We are providing more facilities for retraining in order to assist these people. Many of them are unskilled workers and we should like to assist them with training. We are stepping up the number of training places.

Firm, Coventry (Dismissed Employee)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Messrs. Decorwall Limited, Wallpaper Manufacturers Retail Division, dismissed an employee in Coventry for joining the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and have since refused to reinstate him and nine other employees who went on strike in protest against his dismissal; and, as the company refuses to meet the union despite the intervention of his conciliation officers, whether, in the interest of a public policy which accepts that trade union association is a right, he will ensure that no further Government contracts are placed with Wallpaper Manufacturers Ltd., owners of Messrs. Decorwall.

Mr. Whitelaw: This firm has assured our officers that the employee in question was not dismissed for joining a trade union. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend does not think it would be appropriate to pursue the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Edelman: As proof that the company concerned is not telling the truth, is it not the case that the eight employees allegedly intimidated by the manager came out on strike in support of him? Is it not further the case that Wallpaper Manufacturers Ltd. has been condemned by the Monopolies Commission for its activities contrary to the public interest? Is it not known to the Minister, as it is well known in Coventry, that the company has refused to recognise trade unionism in its retail shops? In view of that, is not this yet another example of its activities contrary to the public interest?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am simply not prepared to accept that what the firm has told my right hon. Friend is not true.

Mr. Hocking: Is my hon. Friend aware that this company has enjoyed excellent labour relations with the trade union movement over a long period of years? Is he also aware that one of the reasons given for this man being dismissed was that he misused stamps and stationery? Is not this a just and sound reason for an employer sacking a man?

Mr. Whitelaw: I prefer to stick to what I said—that the firm has assured my right hon. Friend that the employee in question was not dismissed for joining a trade union. That is what we have been told, and that is a statement which I accept. I am glad to hear what my hon. Friend says about the firm's relations with the trade union movement.

Mr. Gunter: In view of all the confusion on the facts, would the hon. Gentleman agree that the best thing to do would be for the union to meet the employers and to sort the matter out?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that this firm has very good relations with its trade union, and always has had.

Mr. Edelman: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Manuel: Expose them.

Overseas Resettlement Bureau

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider making available through the services of his Department details of employment vacancies which are at present only offered through the Overseas Resettlement Bureau.

Mr. Whitelaw: The bureau was, of course, established with the particular purpose of assisting ex-members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service to obtain suitable employment. I will, however, discuss the suggestion which my hon. Friend has made with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation.

Mr. Loveys: I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful reply as far as it goes. Would he agree that many of the increasing number of British subjects returning from service in the emergent territories feel frustrated that certain details of re-employment for which they are fully qualified are available only to Crown Agents and colonial civil servants through this bureau? I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to obtain this information for other British subjects.

Mr. Whitelaw: I assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry sends the

bureau particulars of any notified vacancies particularly suitable for ex-overseas civil servants. All are invited to register for re-employment with both the bureau and the Ministry.

Southampton Docks (Marine Repair Yard)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the marine repair yard in Southampton Docks may be closed within the next fortnight; and what steps he is taking to find jobs for those who will become redundant.

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand from the British Railways Board that consideration is being given to the closure of the marine workshops at Southampton but that there is no question of immediate closure. As part of the seasonal reduction 150 workpeople were discharged last Friday and 340 are under notice to leave in the course of this week. These workers and others who might become redundant as a result of any decision the Board may take to close the workshops will receive every assistance from our local officers in finding alternative employment.

Dr. King: As labour relations in the Southampton Docks are normally very good, as the hon. Gentleman knows, will he do what he can to ensure that British Railways, when they are contemplating steps of this gravity affecting men's livelihoods, take those men into their fullest confidence and consultation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman says is acceptable to both sides of the House.

Building Industry (Health and Welfare)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to lay down minimum standards of health and welfare in the building industry; whether he will apply to all building contractors, the standards now insisted upon by the Ministry of Public Building and Works in relation to Government contracts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: Minimum standards are already laid down in the Building


(Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948. The health and welfare requirements are being revised and preliminary drafts of the new Regulations have been under discussion with interested organisations. I hope soon to be in a position to publish a Statutory Draft. These Regulations will cover a wide variety of building sites and also works of engineering construction. It would not be appropriate to insist on the Ministry of Public Building and Works' standards being applied over the whole field, as these relate only to large construction sites where work is expected to last at least 12 months.

Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister thinking in terms of similar standards for those of the Ministry of Public Building and Works in relation to large contracts? Can he give any indication of the timing of the procedure which he has just described—when he expects the new regulations to be brought before the House in their final form?

Mr. Godber: I have thought about this problem of large sites. I felt that it was probably right to provide general regulations covering the whole field. We can, perhaps, see what they look like when they emerge. There has been a good deal of discussion on this matter and I cannot yet give a firm guarantee on dates. We want to get agreement if possible.

Labour Training Facilities, Scotland

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent labour training and retraining facilities in Scotland are being fully utilised; and what evidence there is of a growing demand for such facilities.

Mr. Godber: Three hundred and thirty-five of the 405 training places available for adults at Government training centres in Scotland are at present occupied. Demand for training is at present steady, but I am providing a further 456 training places to meet the needs arising from expected industrial expansion and change in Scotland. I shall keep these plans under regular review.

Mr. Hamilton: Could the Minister explain the reasons for the shortfall in the demand for them relative to the

supply? Is it because of a lack of publicity? What are the reasons? Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the trade unions are cooperating? May I ask him specifically about the position in Fife? What is the response of redundant miners to the training facilities provided there?

Mr. Godber: We are doing all we can about publicity. I am a little disappointed that the centres are not completely full. If the hon. Gentleman can help me in this matter, I shall be grateful because we want the facilities to be used as much as possible. We are doing all we can. In relation to Fife, the number of redundant miners who have made application for training has not been very large. Only 31 have applied for training out of the very considerable number who have become redundant. Of course, a number of them are getting other jobs for which they have not required training.

Mr. Manuel: Will the Minister indicate the number of places available in Scotland? Can he also inform the House what facilities he has established in the Fort William area to cope with the large influx of workers who will be taken on by the pulp mill when it comes into operation?

Mr. Godber: The figures which I have given relate solely to Scotland. I do not have a training centre in the Fort William area, but I hope that we can provide facilities for training the local men in other areas if necessary.

SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION (MILITARY OPERATIONS)

Mr. Healey: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the operations in the Federation of Southern Arabia.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): No military engagements of any consequence have occurred during the last few days. Traffic is moving freely on the Aden/Dhala road. The initial objective of the operation has, therefore, been achieved. The present phase of the operation is one of consolidation and reconnaissance in the area to the east


of the road, where positions are still held by hostile tribesmen.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is in Aden now discussing the situation with the High Commissioner and the Commander-in-Chief. I do not think that there is anything that I can usefully add until he has reported on his visit.

Mr. Healey: We would all, on both sides, wish to express our admiration of the courage, skill and endurance of the British troops who are fighting under appalling conditions, but we are rather disturbed at the reported shortage of helicopters in this campaign, which was a serious deficiency also in the Borneo campaign. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about this? We are also disturbed by the evident confusion in political direction of operations by Her Majesty's Government. I should like to ask one or two questions about this.
First, can the Secretary for Defence give a final answer on the question of the authorisation of the bombing with 1,000-lb. bombs? He will be aware that it was stated by the local commander that authorisation was sought of the Secretary of State for Defence in Whitehall, and was given, but this was denied yesterday to the Press by the Ministry of Defence, who said that such authority was neither sought nor required. I gather that there has been another statement since then. It is rather disturbing that there should be an obvious confusion between the local command and London about precisely what is or is not proper without reference to London.
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman throw more light on the resignation of the British commander of the Federal forces, who served for only a fortnight? It is said that he resigned because the Federal forces, once handed over to the Federal Government, were inadequately supplied and were not getting adequate financial assistance from Her Majesty's Government. Can the Secretary of State for Defence tell us something about this?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The last point is a quite separate one from the operations. One is concerned with the arrangements for the logistics and administration of the Federal forces. A team of Defence and Colonial Office representatives is

examining the matter now. If the hon. Member will put down a Question on that separate point, I will answer it separately.
I agree that in this as in other operations, helicopters have proved of the greatest use. They have been used to the full and we are taking all necessary measures to ensure that adequate numbers are available.
With regard to the use of bombs, the Government gave full authority for our troops to be supported in this operation by all necessary means. I should like to make it absolutely plain that we have no intention of committing troops to battle without seeing that the commanders on the spot have complete authority to give them necessary cover to minimise casualties. That authority was given for this operation generally. It was not necessary to seek it for this act of bombing. The authority was given for the operation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since Mr. Khrushchev has been sounding forth about the bombs to which the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has referred, will the Government ensure that the fullest possible publicity is given at the United Nations and in the world at large to the barbarous cruelty of the bombing done by the MiGS and the Ilyushin aircraft given by the Russians to the Egyptians in the Yemen?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Fairly wide publicity has been given to the continuous bombing of tribesmen in the Yemen, including the use of napalm, but I certainly note what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Grimond: While nobody would wish to embarrass the troops during the course of this difficult operation, can the Minister assure us that when it is over he will represent to his colleagues that there should be a reconsideration of our responsibilities in the area and of the method of how peace and progress are to be assured? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is anxiety in the country that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations should have to leave London at this crucial moment for other negotiations? Will the Government, in due course, consider the situation in the Commonwealth Relations Office?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I quite agree that there are political problems in the area, but it serves little purpose to pretend that it is possible for political consideration to be given to problems of this character unless and until military control of an area is obtained. That is a prerequisite and I hope very much that that situation will not be blurred by vague and rather waffly talk of a possible political solution.

Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend find a way of expressing to the relatives of those who have been killed in the fighting the sympathy of this House, more particularly because of the way these matters have been reported in the Press from time to time?
Will my right hon. Friend also give a clear and precise undertaking to the House that anything that is carried out in the South Arabian Federation will be for the defence of British interests and that, should there be further incursions from across the border, the British Government will feel free to supply arms, if need be, to the Royalist forces in the Yemen, which is the régime that we recognise?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that it would be the feeling of the whole House that we extend our deepest sympathy to the relatives of men who were killed fighting gallantly in operations of this character.
Certainly, it is our purpose to defend British interests, although I think that in this area interests even wider than the narrow interests of this country are served by the actions which are now taking place. Operations over the frontier are a quite separate question. I am concerned here, as is the Question, with gaining control within our territory.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand from the Secretary of State's reply to the Leader of the Liberal Party that the Government are not concerned about seeking possible political solutions? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain his statement that the visit of the Commonwealth Secretary is to ascertain the military position? If a member of the Government has been sent out to ascertain the military position, should it have been the Commonwealth Secretary? Should it not have been somebody associated with the

Secretary of State's own Department? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has been sent and what he is authorised to do?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I was very far from saying—it is within the recollection of the House—that political problems do not arise in this area. Political advances must be sought. Indeed, it is for that, among other reasons, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is there at this moment. What I did say, and I re-emphasise it, was this, that political solutions are not possible unless military control is obtained in a situation of this kind. There are too many people who are willing to talk loosely of political solutions and thus detract from the need of the supporting action which is going on.

Sir T. Beamish: In view of the fact that a charge was made yesterday in Cairo that an imperial Power had been dropping bombs on towns and villages in the Yemen, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that apart from the attack on the Yemeni fort at Harib, the nearest village being half a mile away from the fort and the attack being carried out with the greatest accuracy, there have been no attacks with British bombs on any single village or any town in the Yemen?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No bombs have been dropped on the Yemen. The attack at Fort Harib was not a bombing raid at all. It was a rocket attack. These operations, are, of course, all fairly and squarely within the territory of the Federation.

Mr. Healey: Yes, but surely, for that reason, the prime responsibility for dealing with the incidents should lie on the Federal army itself? I do not think that the House would easily accept the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that the situation in the Federal regular army is irrelevant to what is going on.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will promise the House a statement, before the Recess, on the reasons for Brigadier Williams's resignation and the steps which have been taken to produce a more efficient regular army? It is possible.
Secondly, may I ask him this? We all agree that we do not want to make the task of our troops on the ground more difficult, but he will agree that an armed conflict sometimes arises because political and economic issues are not properly dealt with. Can he tell us, since he referred to the visit of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies, whether his right hon. Friend is to look at the extremely contentious question of the situation of the Federation and whether he is empowered to offer more economic aid to the inhabitants of the Federation, since it was not the Leader of the Liberal Party but the Secretary for the Interior of the Federal Republic who said that the main reason for the revolt was the inadequacy of the economic aid?

Sir K. Pickthorn: On a point of order. May we be told how long, how varied, how relevant or irrelevant debating points are to be, and still pretend to be supplementary questions?

Mr. Speaker: All that I am allowed to permit on these occasions are a few questions. The length of the questions asked limits the opportunity for other Members to ask them, because I can allow only a few. The Private Notice Question for which leave was given was relevant to operations. I think that we ought to bear that in mind.

Mr. Thorneycroft: If I may answer the only operational point in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, if I may say so, his supplementary rather illustrated the point I had in mind in my earlier reply, that to blur the fact or loosely to confuse that what we are meeting here are tribesmen who are armed, equipped and trained—armed with light automatic weapons, equipped with radio and mortars, and trained over the frontier—with a vague assertion about wrong political judgment in the Federation is not to do our troops a proper service.

Mr. Wyatt: Mr. Wyatt rose—

Mr. Speaker: What we cannot do is to have a debate about this without a Question before the House.

BUSINESS SCHOOLS (MANCHESTER AND LONDON UNIVERSITIES)

The Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): With permission, I wish to make a statement about British business schools in the universities.
The importance of management studies for the future of our economy has been strongly emphasised by the National Economic Development Council; and the establishment of two major business schools—a new development in this country—was recommended in general terms by the Robbins Committee.
A Working Party, under the chairmanship of Lord Normanbrook, was set up at the initiative of the Federation of British Industries. It was asked to give definition to the proposal made by Lord Franks in his recent Report on British Business Schools for the establishment of two new business schools at the Universities of Manchester and London, and, in particular, to examine the costs of starting and running them, and to establish the basis for partnership between business and the universities in their finance and administration. The Working Party included representatives of industry and commerce, of the two universities themselves, and of the University Grants Committee.
The Report, now being published, estimates that the capital costs of the two schools would be between £2·2 million and £2·4 million; that, over the first seven years, the total net recurrent cost would be about £1·7 million; and that, thereafter, the net running costs would be about £332,000 a year. The Working Party envisage that this burden should be shared equally between business and the universities. They also suggest how governing bodies should be constituted to carry out the principle of partnership.
The Government welcome this principle and have sought the advice of the University Grants Committee on the Working Party's proposals from the point of view of policy on university development. They have been glad to learn that the Committee fully endorses them.
For their part, the Government have indicated to the Committee and to the F.B.I. that they are prepared to make provision for the universities' share of capital and current expenditure on the two new business schools within the framework of future university programmes.
They are also prepared to give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion contained in Lord Franks' Report that awards from public funds should be made available for postgraduate students at these schools.
I understand that the Federation of British Industries is now planning an appeal to all sides of the business community for funds for management education which will include their share of the needs of the two schools. I am sure that business will wish to play a full part in this new development from the point of view both of finance and operation.
In pledging full financial support to the universities concerned, I should like to add that the Government do not in any way wish to imply that management studies elsewhere, whether at universities, colleges of advanced technology and technical colleges, or other institutions, will no longer be needed, or are to take second place. Raising the quality of management at all levels calls for the steady development of all the work now going forward in the various parts of our educational system, as well as for the establishment of these two new schools.

Mr. Willey: I am sure that the House will welcome the statement that the Secretary of State has made. I am sure, also, that, while we have not yet had an opportunity of looking at the Working Party's Report, as soon as we have had the opportunity we shall wish to express our appreciation of the Working Party's work.
While we welcome the idea of partnership, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how far the trade unions are brought within this partnership? Can he say how he will expedite this work, for, as the Robbins Committee said, the provision ought to be made, to use its own words, on a large scale? I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that this provision is very much lacking in higher education.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what steps he is taking to make sure that the ladder towards this provision in higher education remains wide and that the steps he is taking will not impair but will encourage the provision which has been made in further education?
Finally, can he say what is being done about the question of providing adequate staff? As the Robbins Committee said, we want staff, in this case, to be recruited from people who have had successful professional careers. This presents a difficulty in higher education.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the trade union movement has yet formally been brought into consultation, but, of course, I shall be very happy indeed to know in what way it can be associated with the proposal. Of course, it is very closely associated with the whole problem of management studies in technical colleges and colleges of advanced technology as well as the universities.
I think that the Working Party believes that full-time staff should have considerable latitude to supplement their academic income with outside fees and that a substantial part of the teaching should be carried on on a part-time basis by persons holding positions in industry and commerce. Although I think that this is, perhaps, not appropriate to these two particular schools, we are, of course, taking steps, as he will have seen, to institute short courses for the teaching of teachers for business courses generally. There were other supplementaries, but I have lost the other two.

Mr. Willey: There was one other point. I referred to the need to make sure that this does not impair the provision for further education, but that we shall be able to extend and encourage the provision made for education at the same time.

Mr. Hogg: I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is the accent in these new institutions to be on the educational or the business end? Are they to be regarded as coping stones of education, or primarily as a help to businesses—to people of all ages engaged in business and commerce?

Mr. Hogg: Two separate courses are to be held at these schools. One is a one-year course for 200 post-graduates, and the other a 20-week course, or a half-year course, for 100 post-experience students. The idea is that the first should take those people who have recently graduated at universities and give them a course which will fit them for managerial posts in industry. The other will take persons frrom industry, who will be given an academic course to make them more useful for industry. Both parts are equally valuable.

Mr. Grimond: I welcome the Government's decision to set up these schools, but is the Secretary of State satisfied that it is wise to have one of them in London? I appreciate that many students may come from London, but London University is already by far the largest university. Will not this increase the magnetism of London? Secondly, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is great concern in Scotland that a similar decision should be taken about business training there? At the end of his statement he said that the Government would encourage other courses of business management. What action is proposed for Scotland, and what assistance are the Government prepared to give?

Mr. Hogg: The Report was confined to the attitude of the Government to certain specific proposals which were made by Lord Franks and commented upon by Lord Normanbrook. I do not think that I could go through the agonies which no doubt Lord Franks suffered in selecting the locations for the two schools. This would be to undo what he has done. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that business training is wanted at several levels in all parts of the country and that Scotland must not be left out of that. Primarily, the responsibility for suggesting what should be done lies with the educational establishment themselves and with business itself. I would certainly wish to encourage movements of that kind.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise what great satisfaction is given by his statement that the Government are willing to enter into partnership with business in the creation of these two business schools?

I should like to follow up his remark about the need for more courses for business management in other institutions, such as universities and the like, because the one great bottleneck there may be in relation to these courses is the supply of teachers. Would the Government be willing to enter into partnership on a £-for-£ basis with industry in supporting management education courses and the like at our universities, including those in Scotland?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his supplementary question. The two subsequent parts are probably too broad for me to commit myself on unequivocally without notice. There is a fundamental difficulty in finding suitable teachers for business studies. It is largely to overcome that difficulty that we are starting research into the content and methods appropriate in the provision of the 10-week course for would-be teachers in this study.
I would not go so far as to say that business studies must be available in every institution—that must ultimately be a question for the institutions to decide for themselves—but I certainly agree that expansion in the different areas is required.

Mr. Snow: I am sure that we are all pleased about this announcement, but can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that we shall extract the best that we can from other schools, for instance, the Harvard School, bearing in mind this country's reliance on exports and the need for higher executive training in overseas marketing?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to Harvard School, which has won an unrivalled place in this field for its particular method of teaching, namely, by case study. But this is not the only method, and we shall take other methods into account and apply them.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise what satisfaction his statement will give to professional bodies and institutes dealing with business management which, up to now, have had to carry much of this training burden themselves? Will he consider consulting them about the appeal for


money? Although these institutes may not themselves be able to contribute, their members should be fully behind the appeal. This would probably increase the effect in industry.
Secondly, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that consultation is carried out with their educational departments, because a great deal of experience has been gained there and would readily be given to the two new schools?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of professional bodies in business studies generally. If there is any way in which I can bring them in or help in this way I shall be very glad to do so. I could not say offhand exactly what the financial relationship between the various professional bodies and the F.B.I. would be, but I would certainly hope that the net would be cast as wide as possible.

BILL PRESENTED

ANIMALS (RESTRICTION OF IMPORTATION)

Bill to restrict the importation of live animals of certain kinds, presented by Miss Harvie Anderson; supported by Mr. David James, Sir Ronald Russell, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, Mr. James H. Hoy, Mr. Archie Manuel, Mr. Leavey, Mr. Stephen Swingler, Mr. Willis, and Mr. Marcus Kimball; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th June and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

Orders of the Day — MALAWI INDEPENDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

4.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. John Tilney): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members will share with me the pleasure of commending the Bill to the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have done so—in fact, he planned so to do—but the House will know that he is in a part of Asia that is vital not only to this country, but to the whole free world, and, therefore, cannot be here to move the Second Reading.
The history of the Nyasaland Protectorate extends a little over 70 years, but before then this country was conscious of the special ties that existed between our missionaries and the people of Nyasaland. I like to recall that it was from my own City of Liverpool—a city where Dr. Banda practised his medicine for a time—that Dr. Livingstone set forth, 105 years ago, to be the first Briton to see the territory on either side of the Shire River, and also to view for the first time Lake Nyasa.
Since then the missionaries have had to grapple with tribal warfare and for several decades with miseries of the slave trade which prevented the progress of the Nyasa people. Yet during the comparatively brief period since Dr. Livingstone first went there and due, I believe, to some extent, to the activities and the enterprise of the British, firm foundations have been laid for a unified state with a modern economy.
I think, also, that in recent years the economic progress of Nyasaland has received a stimulus from her membership


of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Whatever the final verdict may be on this short but significant episode, substantial material improvements have been seen in Nyasaland during the last 10 years. It cannot be disguised however that the dissolution of the Federation has added to the financial and economic burdens of Nyasaland.
However, we look forward to the future of this country and the people of Nyasaland and to the new and rewarding relationship which will exist, we hope, between our peoples for many decades. Her Majesty's Government will certainly do all they can for the newly independent Malawi just, as in the past, they have done for the Protectorate.
We are all impressed by the energy and the courage of the Nyasaland Ministers in facing their economic problems. Inter-governmental talks are taking place now about the scope and content of our aid after independence. Despite the economic difficulties of Nyasaland I believe that she has great assets. The first is the quality of her people. All over Nyasaland and all over Southern Africa one may find Nyasas—like the Scots, with whom they have such close links.
The Prime Minister, Dr. Banda, is, as the House will know, an Elder of the Church of Scotland, and Nyasas hold positions of responsibility throughout Southern Africa on farms, in schools, in industry and even in politics. They show vigour and enterprise and they travel far and wide. I believe that the Tombukas have a proverb which says that travelling is like dancing, the foot is a pumpkin and the buttock is sloth.
Secondly, there is the unity of the country. Although there are a number of different tribes, with their own histories and traditions, there has been of recent years a high degree of political cohesion, shown in a unity of purpose which is perhaps unique in the African territories for which we have been responsible. There is no doubt that the people are solidly behind the present Government, as the recent Nyasaland elections have shown. Considerable and favourable elements such as these should engender confidence in the future. I am no lawyer, and for the same sake of the record it is important that what one says about a. Bill of this kind should be

extremely accurate. I hope, therefore, that the House will forgive me if now I refer more closely to my notes.
The House will recall that following discussions between my right hon. Friend, the First Secretary of State, Dr. Banda and the Governor of Nyasaland, in September of last year, it was announced that Her Majesty's Government would grant Nyasaland independence on 6th July this year and that proposals for the Independence Constitution should be worked out in Nyasaland by the Governor in consultation with the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. These proposals have now been received and accepted by Her Majesty's Government. They closely follow the precedents of previous independence Constitutions and will be promulgated in an Order in Council which, after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it is proposed to submit to Her Majesty's Privy Council.
The House will wish to know that it is proposed that the Bill of Rights embodied in the present Constitution should be retained. The Constitution will also provide for Malawi citizenship to take effect from 6th July and for a Legislature of 50 members elected on a General Roll and three members representing European opinion elected on a Special Roll. Elections on this basis took place last month. There will be a cabinet system of Government and the judicial system will provide for minimum rights of appeal from subordinate courts to the High Court. There will also be rights of appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Order in Council will also contain the normal provisions for Public, Police and Judicial Service Commissions.
I turn now to the Bill itself. The principal object is to confer on Nyasaland fully responsible status within the Commonwealth under the name of Malawi. I am told that "Malawi" stems from an ancient people who inhabited the area which stretches from the lake shore into part of Northern Rhodesia and into Mozambique. From those people are descended many who are still living in Nyasaland.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides that on and after 6th July, 1964, Her Majesty's


Government in the United Kingdom no longer will be responsible for the government of the territory. The Nyasaland Legislature in Zomba was unanimous in its wish that Malawi should become a member country of the Commonwealth and that Her Majesty should remain its Sovereign as Queen of Malawi. Clause I also provides that future British legislation shall not extend to Malawi; that any enactments or instruments passed or made before 6th July shall continue in force, and that no alteration in the law of the territory shall result from its change of status from a Protectorate to one of Her Majesty's Dominions.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill deal with nationality matters. At present, the majority of the population are British-protected persons, but there are also a number of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These include persons who were until recently citizens of the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It is proposed that detailed provisions relating to Malawi citizenship should be included in the independence Order in Council.
The purpose of Clause 2 is to provide that any person who becomes a citizen of Malawi will, by virtue of that citizenship possess the status of British subject or Commonwealth citizen, that British-protected persons will not lose their status as such until they acquire Malawi citizenship and that on 6th July citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies will be withdrawn from persons who acquire Malawi citizenship. However, this last provision is modified by the first three subsections of Clause 3 which preserve the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies of those persons who become Malawi citizens, but, nevertheless, have substantial connections with the United Kingdom or a Colony.
The remainder of Clause 3 is interpretative. These provisions relating to citizenship and nationality correspond with similar provisions in other independence Acts relating to former British protectorates or Trust Territories in Africa. It is also necessary to extend the influence of the British Nationality Act, 1964, to persons whose national status may be affected by the Order in Council.
The House will recall that Section 1 of this Act, which comes into force on 25th May, enables persons obliged to renounce citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies so as to acquire that of a Commonwealth country to regain it without fulfilling the normal and somewhat lengthy requirements. The Bill as at present drafted omits reference to the 1964 Act. The Government therefore propose to move an Amendment to Clause 2 during the Committee stage to rectify this.
Clause 4 and Schedule 2 deal with modifications of various United Kingdom enactments consequent on the grant of independence.
Clause 5 enables provision to be made conferring jurisdiction in appeals from Malawi and in proceedings concerning judges of Malawi courts to be conferred on the Judicial Committee on the Privy Council, and excluding any right of appeal to Her Majesty in Council. Similar provision was made in the case of Kenya in the Kenya Independence Act. The purpose of the Clause is to permit the establishment of appeal arrangements in the Constitution of the territory which can remain unaffected should the territory later become a republic and, consequently, cease to be under Her Majesty's sovereignty.
Clause 6 terminates the divorce jurisdiction of courts in Malawi in respect of British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom and makes provision for transitional arrangements. Clause 7 is an interpretative Clause, and Clause 8 deals with the short title of the Bill.
Finally, I believe that the House would like to join with Her Majesty's Government in wishing the Government of Nyasaland—Malawi-to-be—and the people of Malawi happiness and prosperity in the coming decades. We hope that we shall continue our close and friendly ties. We shall certainly do all we can to help the Malawi people meet the many problems which they must face.
In commending the Bill to the House, I recall the happy association that we have had with the Malawi people over many years, and I believe that everyone on both sides of the House will offer to


this beautiful country and its people as we approach the historic event of independence our warmest greetings.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: On behalf of the Opposition, I, too, should like to welcome the Bill. We should also like to congratulate the people of Malawi and their leaders on achieving their independence.
Perhaps before I go on to some more general remarks about the significance of this important occasion it might be better to clear up one or two questions about the Bill which have arisen from what the Minister has said.
First, why, in this case, is there no explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill? The form of the Bill is similar to that of other independence Bills that we have had, but for those of us who still read with fascinated mystification the felicities of the official draftsmen it would have been helpful to our untutored minds if we had had a little enlightenment about, for example, the significance of Clause 5 in relation to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or the inevitably very complicated Clause relating to nationality, about which the Minister has tried, without too much success, to give us some enlightenment.
I should like some further information on the question of citizenship. Do I understand that Malawi is, in certain cases, conceding dual citizenship to British subjects—of Malawi, on the one hand, and of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on the other? This is an important point for a number of people of this country who resided for a long time in Nyasaland.
I should also like information about the arrangements with regard to appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When I tried to comprehend Clause 5, it seemed to me to have been drawn in such a way that it could mean absolutely anything. First of all, it says that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may have jurisdiction in appeals from Malawi in certain circumstances.
Then, subsection (2,c) reads:
may exclude an appeal to Her Majesty in Council, whether as of right or by special leave, in all or any cases".
As far as I can make sense of this, it seems to mean that the Order in Council

might well say that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not, in fact, to be the final court of appeal for Malawi. We ought to have a clear indication of the intentions of the Government of Malawi and of Her Majesty's Government in this respect.
Finally, I want to ask a question which is related to this point, whether it is planned in due course, as has happened with many Commonwealth countries on reaching independence, for Malawi to become a republic. Naturally, a good deal of pleasure arises from the fact, as the Minister said, that the Malawi Government have decided to retain Her Majesty the Queen as Sovereign at the moment, and there is also a great deal of pleasure to be derived from the fact that we have appointed Sir Glyn Jones, the present Governor, to be the first Governor-General of the independent country. However, it would be better for us to be clear about the intentions in this case.
I think that there is a great deal to be said for a new country in the Commonwealth becoming a republic straight away. Then all know where they stand in the matter, and there is no dangerous speculation at the point at which a newly independent country of the Commonwealth decides to change over to being a Republic. I gathered from what the Minister said that there was some ambiguity about this. It would be helpful to have more information about it.
Apart from those questions about the Bill, the Opposition welcome the Bill very much. It is a particular pleasure for me to have the privilege to speak for the Opposition on the Bill. I came into the House for the first time in 1952, when the argument about the Central African Federation was just beginning, and I recall that the first speeches on colonial problems that I ever made were on the right of the people of Nyasaland to continue to enjoy the protection of this Parliament and this country until they felt themselves ready to determine their own future for themselves.
Like a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and hon. Members of many different points of view, I have lived closely with the Central African problems for the decade since then.


It is, therefore, for me an exciting experience to take part in this historic occasion when Britain at last, withdraws her protection at the request of a Nyasaland Government who clearly represent the consent of the overwhelming majority of the people of that country. Although our protection is withdrawn in the legal sense, it does not mean, as I was glad the Minister made clear, that Britain is withdrawing her care and concern for the future well-being of the Malawi people.
It is worth remembering that, as the Minister said, Nyasaland was never conquered by this country. It was Dr. David Livingstone, a very saintly Scotsman—even if he spent some of his time in Liverpool—who first reached Lake Nyasa in 1859. It was not until 1891 that Nyasaland came under the protection of the British Crown
with the consent and the desire of the Chiefs and the people".
So, for nearly one-third of the century during which Britain and Nyasaland have been linked, the relationship between our two countries was one of private and Christian concern rather than of official colonial administrative rule.
The point that I am making is that our interest in the welfare of the people of Nyasaland pre-dated the coming-into-being of colonial rule. I am sure that our concern for the future welfare and progress of the country will continue long after our colonial responsibility in Nyasaland has come to an end.
I am proud of the rôle that the Scottish Kirk has played over the years in Nyasaland. Nyasaland is a country very like the Scottish Highlands, a poor and beautiful land of lochs and mountains, and generations of Scottish missionaries have followed David Livingstone and given their lives to the Nyasa people.
It is sometimes said that the Labour movement in this country owes much to the training both in character and in the tasks of democratic government which it received through our nonconformist churches in the early days of the Industrial Revolution in this country. I like to think that the Scottish Kirk in Nyasaland has played the same historic rôle. It sought to build an African church at a time when the

idea of African self-government was considered outrageous. The Scottish missionaries showed themselves ready, on a non-racial basis, to serve African congregations under African Ministers. During the difficult years of Federation, the Scottish missionaries faced much misrepresentation—some of it in this House—and much isolation while they worked in Nyasaland. They stood faithful to the traditions of stewardship, and they have been proved, in the event, right.
Two years ago, when I attended an international economic symposium in Blantyre, I was struck by the easy, unaffected good relations that then existed between the races. It was difficult for someone who had lived through the debates on Central Africa in this House, to believe that this was, in fact, the country of a police State, described so vividly by Mr. Justice Devlin only three years before that time. The fact that these tragic events seem to have left so remarkably little scar on race relations is due in great measure to the trust and good will between the races created by missionaries of all denominations in Nyasaland.
Some fears are still expressed from time to time in this House about the processes of law and order in Nyasaland. For myself, I believe that the preservation of the rule of law is the most vital thing for any civilised country—even more important in a developing country than the existence of more than one party in Parliament, important though I believe that to be, if it can be achieved. The price of law and order, particularly in a developing country where there are strong economic pressures towards intolerance, is eternal vigilance. That is why we welcome the fact that the Government of Malawi have felt able to put in this provision about the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council remaining as the final court of appeal. That is why I hope that in any further enlightenment that we get from the Minister we shall be assured that this will, in fact, be a constructive effort to meet some of the fears which exist.
I would add that I sometimes find it a little difficult to understand why some back benchers opposite are inclined to


express great anxiety about each particular incident they come across, and sometimes raise in the House, while they seem to be able to swallow without much difficulty some of the repressive legislation that has been carried out by the Government in Southern Rhodesia. This is not, however, an occasion for recrimination. I merely want to record that today seems to me to be a happy milestone on a journey that has already turned some dangerous corners, and which, no doubt, has some very difficult ups and downs ahead of it.
But despite the detour taken by Nyasaland through the years of federation, the journey to independence has been astonishingly swift. When federation was first imposed, 10 years ago, there were, in fact, no directly elected representatives of any kind in Nyasaland, and the idea of an African member of the Executive Council, even a nominated one, was considered something very much for the distant future. The relative smoothness of the revolution that has taken place—because it is no less than a revolution—is due in large degree, I feel, to the remarkable leadership of Dr. Hastings Banda. Dr. Banda has his critics in this country, and no one would deny the dangers inherent in that charismatic leadership. The outstanding thing about Dr. Banda has been his realism and is magnanimity during the years that he has led his country.
It would have been very easy for Dr. Banda, with his gift of emotional oratory, to have whipped up great bitterness against this country following the tragic times of the state of emergency. But even then, in his evidence to the Devlin Commission, he made it very clear that he had no personal rancour against the then Governor of Nyasaland. He had hardly been released before he paid warm, and, I think, well-deserved tributes, to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) the then Colonial Secretary.
Dr. Banda's relations with the present Governor, Sir Glyn Jones, have been of a particularly friendly and co-operative nature. I feel that a tribute is due from this House to the Governor for the wise leadership he has shown and the rôle that he has played in building up good will between the races. It is a sign of

the calibre of both men that Dr. Banda has asked Sir Glyn Jones to be the first Governor-General of independent Malawi.
Malawi seems to be a text-book example of how Britain's obligations to a former Colony no longer end, or remotely end, on political independence. All that happens now is that our obligations change character. They must now take place between politically equal Governments and I hope that they will take place within a Commonwealth framework of co-operation and mutual aid. In Malawi's most crippling poverty, the biggest problem is lack of educated manpower. Sir Roy Welensky, I thought, was always very much justified in the remarks that he made from time to time about the way in which Britain had neglected Nyasaland in the past.
Over the first 30 years of this century, the British Treasury gave Nyasaland only about £30,000 a year. In 1932, the education grant was the pitifully small sum of £12,000, less than a third of what was provided by the struggling missionary societies at that time. It was not until after 1945 that successive British Governments accepted seriously the obligation to give economic help to raise living standards in our colonial dependencies.
I was staggered to notice a figure given in one of the appendices to the Monckton Commission dealing with education in Nyasaland, where it is remarked, in Appendix VI, page 210, that
Since the proclamation of the Protectorate in 1891, twenty-eight Nyasaland Africans have completed courses of higher education;"—
This was during the whole period between 1891 and 1958.
Two of these qualified as medical practitioners …
Presumably Dr. Hastings Banda represented 50 per cent. of the total output of qualified doctors for the population of Nyasaland during almost the whole of our period of stewardship in that country.
I remember asking a Question, during the time of the emergency, of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, about the number of African graduates in Nyasaland at that time—1959—and I was told that there were, in fact, 22. Twelve of them happened to be in detention on that occasion, and now these


12, instead of being in prison, are Cabinet Ministers, who are showing remarkable good will towards this country in spite of their experience at our hands. I believe that they deserve generous aid in carrying through their long overdue educational revolution.
A great part of the drive for education should be directed to agricultural education. According to the Monckton Commission, the per capita income in Nyasaland was £16 per head a year when Federation began and £19 when it ended. Thus, Nyasaland, is one of the poorest countries in the world.
Some will ask what difference political independence will make in a country of such grinding agricultural poverty. The answer of experience now is that it makes a great deal of practical difference to economic and agricultural advance. If traditional but backward agricultural methods are to be changed, the change can only come on the basis of popular acceptance and participation by the people acting on orders coming down from a Government who enjoy the consent of those governed.
We have repeatedly had the unhappy experience of colonial agricultural officers trying to persuade people to change and being met with bitter resistance. We have seen this followed by great agricultural improvements made possible by the introduction of representative government. I regard the two most important priorities in terms of development of Malawi as being education and the building up of a really good agricultural expansion service.
I wish that the hon. Gentleman had given more information about the economic help we are pledged to give the new Government. I hope that it will be generous and that the kind of traditions we have built up over nearly a century there of concern for the welfare of the people will be continued very actively. Meanwhile, I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the Bill. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer the warmest good wishes to the new Commonwealth nation of Malawi on its independence on 6th July.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I wish to speak for only a few minutes to wish godspeed to the Prime Minister

and all the people of all the races that will form the new country of Malawi.
I suppose that I have perhaps more responsibility than any single man in this country for the chain of events leading to this Bill. That is so for good or ill, and it is right, therefore, that on its Second Reading, I should declare, or rather reiterate, my view that it has been, and will be, for good.
When I first succeeded to the office of Colonial Secretary the most urgent problem facing me was that of Nyasaland. It was then in the grip of an emergency, with the shadow of the Devlin Report hanging over us all. The more I studied the problem the more it became clear to me that, if there was the key to it, this key lay in the person of one man—and that a man who was in prison without trial. So I decided—as, I think, is known, against a good deal of advice from Central Africa—that the future of Malawi could only really start with the release of Dr. Banda. So he was released and from that the chain of events has rolled on and brought us to today.
It is said of Dr. Banda—and I think that I would agree—that he is a complex character. A short time ago I read an article in the Sunday Express expressing the anxieties of a European in Malawi about committing his future to a man who could be reasonable and moderate in private discussion and yet sometimes violent and demagogic on the platform. We in the House of Commons should be the last people to be afraid of that particular combination. Such people as diverse as David Lloyd George, on the one side, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), on the other, could possibly qualify under both these headings.
I would say to the person who put forward that point of view that I understand how he feels, but I hope very much that, except for those who cannot bring themselves to make terms with the future—and these are a very small minority—those who are at present in Nyasaland will stay. They are a small number of people themselves, but they are of key importance to the Colony. I believe that they will find a welcome and a happy future in the new Malawi.
I was particularly glad to hear the optimistic note of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. It is true that it has been more fashionable in this House—and, with respect to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) this applies to both sides—occasionally to decry what has happened in Nyasaland. I think that, on the contrary, there is a great deal to praise and it is on that note that I wish to speak for a moment more. I like to think that I happen to know Dr. Banda as well as any hon. Member in the House, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson).
I am convinced that Dr. Banda is absolutely genuine in the open admiration that we know he has, and which he expressed again a day or two ago, for this country. Indeed, I am also convinced that the two events which have been commented on by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member—that Malawi will be a monarchy and that Dr. Banda will probably invite Sir Glyn Jones to become Governor-General—are linked
I am certain that Dr. Banda has the warmest regard for Sir Glyn Jones and that the partnership between the two has been of inestimable value to Nyasaland in past years. I am sure that Dr. Banda values the wise counsel and steady help of Sir Glyn Jones in the inevitably difficult beginning that comes to an independent country. I agree that we do not know how long this will last. I agree that there may be pressures to change this state of affairs. But I think that, for today, we should be thankful that this liaison between the two men exists and that, happily, it seems likely that Malawi will begin its career as a monarchy with the help of Sir Glyn Jones as Governor-General.
Lastly, I agree very warmly with what has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee, East about the rôle of the missionaries—in particular, of the Church of Scotland—in Nyasaland. This has always been so. It has helped weave all the different threads of character in Dr. Banda and has played an important part in the patchwork of events leading to the Bill. On 6th July, when Malawi becomes independent, I hope to be there myself and to convey in person to the Prime Minister, and through him to the people of Malawi, the good wishes that I am sure

we all want to send from this House today.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I should like to express my very great pleasure at following the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). He spoke of being more responsible than any hon. Member in this House for the chain of events leading to the Bill. I think that he was even modest when he said that. I would have said that he was responsible for the change of events leading to the Bill, because it was when he became Secretary of Stale for the Colonies that he not only took the step he described, of releasing Dr. Banda, but changed the whole policy of the Government towards Nyasaland at that time—a change upon which the progress towards this Measure has been built.
I almost felt a rival to the right hon. Gentleman when he claimed to Know Dr. Banda more than almost anyone else in the House—and I appreciate that both he and the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) have known Dr. Banda very intimately. It is 30 years since I first came to know Dr. Banda, who was then practising as a doctor. I remember going into his home and finding that his European patients admired and loved him, just as the African patients I saw in his surgery in Ghana later came to love him there. During the days of the struggle of Nyasaland for its independence from the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, it was wonderful to see how the chiefs aid other deputations which came from Nyasaland, and which met in his home, depended upon his good advice.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West paid his tribute because it will carry great weight from his own period of office and coming, as it does, from his side of the House. Articles are now appearing in the British Press and speeches are sometimes made by the party opposite which are very critical of Dr. Banda as a person and of his régime. I accept at once the characterisation of him which the right hon. Gentleman has given. It is not true only of Dr. Banda.
I have just had the same experience in the City of Rome, where I have been


carrying on some negotiations with a leading representative of Africa. In committee, in discussion and in conference he was the most reasonable, the most constructive person, a person with the greatest understanding of the psychology of an opponent that one could conceive, but at a public meeting the same night, on the platform, his temper, his words and his approach were very different. But this is true of so many of us.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: It is the same with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brockway: The hon. Gentleman says it is the same with me. He has the misfortune to hear me in the House of Commons, but not when I speak to my audiences in Eton and Slough. The boys do, and I do not think that the boys would take the same view.
I will give another example which is important to the understanding of Dr. Banda. There was one Member of Parliament whom only older hon. Members will remember, "Geordie" Buchanan. "Geordie" Buchanan, in the House of Commons, was the voice of the wretchedly poor as no other voice has ever been in this Chamber. Because he was the voice of the wretchedly poor, who were then exploited in the most appalling way, he spoke here with vigour and intensity. The same man became Chairman of the National Assistance Board, with an administrative capacity which very few offered such positions could claim. I believe and very much hope that the same will be true of Dr. Banda.
Because my mind was full of wishing to congratulate the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, I omitted to pay at least formal congratulation to the Government. I will later explain why I say "formal" The real congratulations today are not only to Dr. Banda, not only to the right hon. Gentleman and not only to the present Governor in Nyasaland; they go also to the men and women in Nyasaland itself who, during these years, have been carrying on the struggle for their right of independence and their right of self-reliance. We know the suffering and we know the sacrifices which they have had to make. We know the terms of imprisonment

through which they have had to pass. We know the character of the struggle which they have had to undertake.
If, within 10 years of the emergency and less than that, that country now has independence, it is due to the fortitude, the courage, the sacrifice and the devotion of those men and women more even than to the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else in this country, or to Dr. Banda himself. Today, we should be thinking—and we sometimes tend to overlook this—that it is often the unknown men or women in any movement or cause who contribute more to the achievement of the victory of that cause than those who are best known.
I appreciate that today, when we are thinking of the new relations between independent Malawi and this country, all of us will want to subdue in our own minds anything of the conflicts of the past, but to pay my own tribute to Dr. Banda, I am bound to make this reference. It is less than 10 years ago that the Secretary of State for the Colonies told the House that Dr. Banda and his movement were responsible for a conspiracy in Nyasaland to murder every European, to murder every Asian and even to murder fellow Africans who did not agree with them. I knew at once that that statement was a damned lie.
I knew that it was a lie, because I knew Dr. Banda and his associates. When, today, we are welcoming the fact that Malawi has its independence, we ought to be hanging our heads with shame that a Government of this country and a Parliament of which we were Members should have believed a story of that kind of plot and conspiracy and should have arrested and sent to prison Dr. Banda and his associates. It is only because we had a change of Secretary of State, who reversed that policy and released Dr. Banda, that we have the Bill which is now before us.
I welcome the fact that the Bill of Rights is to be included in the Constitution. I recognise at once that in the new independent African States there is frequently a danger that personal and political rights which we esteem may be set aside. Democracy does not come overnight, or within 10 years. It comes from long evolution and one cannot expect it to be expressed


entirely at once. But the fact that the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution, and that an appeal to it can be made, will help Malawi to begin its new course with that belief in personal liberty and in democratic rights which is the greatest pride of our Parliament.
I make an earnest appeal that the utmost economic help will be given to the new independent State. Its people are about the poorest in the whole Continent of Africa. It is not merely that education and higher education have been neglected. It is a territory which has not yet been found to be rich in natural resources, and its male adult population leaves its borders to obtain work. But, as we know, there are great opportunities in that country, and I hope that a policy will be pursued not only in relation to this newly-independent State, but in relation to other Commonwealth States whereby the needs of our own main industries, particularly those supplying capital goods, will be met by granting credit to those countries so that they can order capital goods from us. By doing so, not only will those countries be assisted, but the problem of unemployment here at home will be alleviated.
Nyasaland was part of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. I am glad that federation in its old form has been destroyed. Nyasaland was not prepared to be a part of a European-dominated Federation. But, having said that, I very much hope that federation will come again. I believe that if Nyasaland is to develop economic validity, it must be done in relation to the other Rhodesias. And I hope that it will not be only in relation to the other Rhodesias. The great hope of East and Central Africa today is a federation which will include not only Nyasaland and the Rhodesias, but will stretch to Kenya, to Tanganyika now in union with Zanzibar, and, in time, to Uganda as well.
If that kind of African State can be built in East and Central Africa, it will have all the opportunities for economic validity. It will have all the opportunities to build a social foundation on which its people, within a far shorter period of time than we now imagine, will be able to create an educated, civilised society equal to that in this country.
We congratulate the people of Nyasaland. We congratulate Dr. Banda, and, because I do not want to be ungenerous, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary who has had the honour of moving the Second Reading of the Bill.

4.54 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) made an interesting and deeply felt speech. I should like to pick up two of the threads which he left behind.
First, I re-echo his plea for the greatest possible generosity on the part of this country. I can imagine no part of Africa or of the Commonwealth where financial and technical help is more needed and where it will be more welcomed and appreciated. I should hate to think that this Bill meant the severance of our sense of responsibility towards Nyasaland, or Malawi as we must now call it. I trust that we shall express our sense of obligation and duty to that country, not only emotionally, but in terms of finance.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke movingly of the great debt which the people of that country owed to the countless numbers of individuals who have struggled and suffered to achieve independence. That country also owes a great debt to the countless numbers of our own nation who have lived and worked there, some in the administration, some in industry and some in missions and who by their day-to-day contact with the people there have imprinted on that country the moral standards of life and decency in which we in this country believe. It has not been altogether a one-way traffic or a one-way effort. The present happy situation in Malawi has come about because the standards which we hold to be good and right have prevailed. It is not only to those who have struggled for liberty but to those who have worked there all their lives to whom tribute should be paid.
This is Dr. Banda's great day. At the risk of wearying the House, I should like to say something about him, as I know him well personally. We need not compete as to who knows him best. Perhaps we know him from different angles. I know him as a friend for whom I have


not only deep respect but genuine affection. For the last few years we have corresponded regularly every few weeks. I have been active in politics for more than 30 years and, like other hon. Members, I have met many eminent, distinguished and remarkable people, but I believe that in his own way and in his own sphere Dr. Banda is as remarkable as any of them.
As a man he is outstanding for his courage both in his private life and in his public life. His private life is his own business and I do not propose to touch on it, but it is the epic of a boy with no advantage behind him rising to this great height entirely unaided and by his own efforts. He is a man of unblemished integrity, He does not lightly give his word, but when he gives it he keeps it to the death. It is easy to give one's word lightly and then find difficulty in keeping it. Dr. Banda does not make that mistake. He has great warmth of heart and love of humanity. It is pleasing to recollect that even now as the Prime Minister of his country he attends his clinic in Blantyre to look after the sick poor.
Dr. Banda is a man of great loyalty to his friends. Everybody in politics has many loyal friends, but I do not believe that I have a more loyal friend than Dr. Banda. He has great sense of justice. He has a great belief in the rule of law and in the liberty of the individual. Finally, he is a man of deep sincerity.
Now I wish to say something about him as a statesman. I am reminded of Sir Christopher Wren's monument in St. Paul's which has the inscription "si monumentum requiris circumspice". It means—if you seek his memorial, look around you. If one wants proof of Dr. Banda's statesmanship, look at what he has done. He has created a nation out of literally nothing—no history, no traditions, no money, none of the things from which one usually creates a nation.
It is very difficult for us in this country to realise what it means to create a nation out of nothing. Our history, our traditions, our liberties, and our laws have been hammered out on the anvil of time over many centuries, but Dr. Banda has created a nation from scratch, purely by his own efforts. It is

an amazing achievement, and if anybody asks me what I think about Dr. Banda I say "Si monumentum requiris circumspice". It has been, and it is, easy for certain people in this country to sneer and to criticise. It is rather like sneering and laughing at a child who is learning to walk. One should not be surprised if he walks with faltering steps, but rather that he walks at all at such a tender age.
There are, of course, inherent dangers because one cannot build up national feeling and national pride except by emotional means. The appeal to self-respect is basically an appeal to emotions, and Dr. Banda has appealed to emotion. The result has been the arousing of emotions which could have been turned in a dangerous direction. He has been accused of setting up a dictatorship. The answer is in a sense it is a dictatorship, but it is a constitutional dictatorship. It is a dictatorship not of force, but of consent. It is a dictatorship not of fear, but of love. In Nyasaland it is really a case of the words sometimes used by Mr. Speaker, "nemine contradicente". Dr. Banda has 99·9 per cent, of African opinion behind him in his own country.
There are dangers, it is true, and those dangers are twofold. There is danger from his followers. One cannot arouse a sense of passionate and emotional nationality without the risk of making one's less stable-minded followers rather dangerous and menacing people sometimes. We have just had an example in Malawi, where nine Jehovah's Witnesses have been killed because they refused to vote. I am sure that they acted sincerely, but their not voting made them seem like traitors to the inhabitants of Malawi.
There are many dangers, but they have, by and large, been avoided. The rule of law obtains in Malawi, and Dr. Banda works day and night to enforce it and to see that his followers and the Administration act justly and with mercy. There have been dangers that in most other countries and under most other leaders would have led to appalling outbreaks and tragedies, but those things have been avoided in Nyasaland. As I said in a debate here a few months ago, the state of law and order in Nyasaland does not compare too badly


with the state of law and order here; with our record of crime and hooliganism.
There are dangers, too, to Dr. Banda's own character. He has been accused, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough has said, of speaking more wildly at public meetings than in conversation. But could any single one of us in this House avoid having our heads turned by being hailed literally as a messiah, and being worshipped and adored by everyone in the country? The remarkable thing is that his head has not been turned. He retains a sense of proportion and a sense of personal humility and dedication that is truly amazing and remarkable. In Dr. Banda we see one of the most remarkable men of our generation—possibly the most remarkable living African. I say, "Thank heaven for Dr. Banda".
I believe that Malawi's future is bright. As the hon. Member for Eton and Slough said, it turns largely on economics—on money and technical assistance. Given the continuance of Dr. Banda, for which I pray, given the continuance of the co-operation and help that the European community has given to the Malawi Government—given, I must add this, the continuance in office of Sir Glyn Jones, who has matched Dr. Banda in skill and generosity—the future for Malawi is bright.
We may well say that this is the end of a chapter—a chapter marked by many misunderstandings, but marked also by much heroism and much human goodness on the part of all races. It is also the opening of a chapter in which we shall see in Malawi one of the brightest examples of how the British Empire turns into the British Commonwealth of free nations.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) repeated the plea that has already been made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and my Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) for more financial and technical aid for Nyasaland. Apart from a long adulation of a personal friend, that was the only real point in the hon. Member's speech. It is not my intention to dwell too long

on the adulation. I only echo the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough that there will follow some economic federation between Nyasaland and the two Rhodesias, and, perhaps, some of the East African countries also.
The hon. Member for Enfield, West is intimately involved here. He knows Dr. Banda and the country well and has followed Nyasaland's progress very closely for the past few years. He said that Dr. Banda is a complex character. It is because Dr. Banda is complex and because he is not fully understood that the right hon. Gentleman made an urgent plea to the skilled personnel still living in Nyasaland to stay there. That is not sufficient. Those people do not understand Dr. Banda as well as some of the right hon. Gentleman's friends and some of mine seem to, because many of them have made a very quick exit. It is not understanding Dr. Banda or recognising that he is a complex character that is needed. These people want security of tenure, a stable Government and real justice meted out by the local courts. That has not happened in recent months.
Nyasaland—or Malawi, as it is to be renamed—is only a small country, with a population of nearly 4 million. It is poverty-stricken and still very backward. It is mainly illiterate—and that after seventy years of British rule; so we have not anything to brag about there. In fact, it has not made any real advance at all. In spite of Nyasaland's opposition to the Central African Federation, it probably made more economic advance and progress in those ten years than in any other previous decade in its history, and I am glad that the Minister referred to that fact.
Nyasaland has never really been wanted—it never offered much to British imperialism. It is small, insignificant, with no mineral resources—no copper or gold. It has never served any strategic purpose—no British garrison has ever been based there. Indeed, for most of the time it has been an embarrassment to Britain, especially in the last few years. In 1958 there was the assasination scare, in 1959 we had the Devlin Report, followed by the Monckton Commission in 1960, the constitutional conferences, and so on. Allied to all that, we had the running


sore of extreme Nyasa and Malawi Congress Parties opposition to the Central African Federation. It has just been an embarrassment. It is not as though the British Government are giving anything away—they are pleased to get rid of it.
I am sorry that the Central African Federation broke up. I think that had Nyasaland given the Federation more support it could have been her economic salvation. However, that is economic advice that has been shunned and pages that have been turned and a new and perhaps more difficult economic struggle faces the Malawi nation. It is interesting to note that so far everyone has particularly mentioned that and pleaded for economic aid for a nation about to become independent. In my opinion, a struggle for survival on the advent of freedom and independence for a Colony that has been under our wing for so long is an admission of failure by this and preceding Governments.
Dr. Banda, like others before him, followed the usual pattern. He was in prison, and then he was released and nailed as a messiah. He then successfully exploited his people's superstitions to his own and his party's advantage. That is common technique, and one cannot blame African leaders for copying methods that have worked successfully elsewhere—in Cyprus, Kenya, Ghana, and so forth.
But there was one damnable thing that Dr. Banda did. There was a smallpox outbreak in Nyasaland. That was not something new—it had happened in previous years. The World Health Organisation sent a team to vaccinate the people, and the superstition quickly ran among the Nyasaland people that vaccination meant sterility. It spread like a bush fire. Consequently, the vaccination teams of the World Health Organisation had disappointedly to be disbanded. In my opinion, whilst never condoning it, Dr. Banda could have condemned it. He is a medical doctor and the leader of the nation, but because it was a national superstition he failed to give the lead which, in my opinion, would have improved his stature.
My yardstick for measuring our success or failure in granting independence to Colonies, which initially we exploited and then in a short period of enlighten-

ment we tried to help, is, first, economic viability so that there is a chance for them to survive alone, allied with the germination of the seeds of democracy which we should have sown. On that reckoning again we have failed in Nyasaland. It is becoming all too common now—one-party states, republics, dictatorships, Africanisation, racial discrimination against the white, detention without charge, etc. etc. Everyone seems to know the story and too many in this country and in this House have become reconciled to these developments. They shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, we tried anyway."
However, every time this pattern unfolds, especially if there is economic instability at the outset, these nations tend to look East or West for economic assistance and then become embroiled in the power bloc hatreds and mistrusts going on in the great Eastern and Western parts of the world. Weakness in the economy demands toughness at the top, and in many instances the people of the nation tend to suffer more than they did under previous colonial rule.
I suggest to the House that the scene is now set for this picture to be painted in the new Malawi of Central Africa. I sincerely hope that it will not and that the economic aid which the people of Malawi so desperately need will be forthcoming. That can be their salvation. I know that it would be easy to say, Nyasaland and Dr. Banda having poisoned the atmosphere of the Central African Federation which was helping them economically far better than they had been helped in any decades previously, and having demanded and received secession from the Federation, "Let them stew in their own juice." But we cannot be as cruelly shortsighted as that.
On examination of the balance sheet of Malawi's future the dangers and pitfalls are easily seen, and they may not be so easy to remedy. On the other side of the coin there are hopes, however, and they are initially encouraging. First of all, there was an economic survey of the nation by Sir Roger Stevens. It began by saying that given reasonable good fortune, stringent economies, increased taxation and greater productivity a stable economy could be achieved over a period of years.
Secondly, on the credit side—and I attach a great deal of importance to this—there are no tribal rivalries of any consequence in Nyasaland. This really is important because when the white man invaded the vast continent of Africa he drew his own territorial frontiers; he sometimes split rival tribes and sometimes put rival tribes together in one boundary. It is important that there are now no rival factions in Nyasaland.
Private capital is starting to move in. There is the Nkula Falls hydro-electric scheme, and the Walker Ferry water supply scheme has been started. No one nation is predominantly in interest. The United States has moved its agency for International Development from Salisbury to Zomba with a view to building schools and technical institutions. West Germany and Israel are also playing a part. I understand that offers to finance railway development and a new sugar industry have also been made. That is the pleasing side.
Let us look at the debit side of the balance sheet. One must remember the words of Sir Roger Stevens in his conclusions that there should be stringent economies and increased taxation. To a nation independent and free and largely illiterate this will be most difficult to understand. Its people can change the name of the nation and rid themselves of the Central African Federation and of British Imperialism. These things will be the only immediately seen changes, but to say to them at the same time "Work harder, tighten your belts, pay more taxes" Will be difficult to explain.
Secondly, there are 150,000 Nayasas working outside Nyasaland, most of them in Southern Rhodesia. As Southern Rhodesia's economy tends to deteriorate many of these Nyasas will be sent home and the result will be doublefold. First, it will increase the unemployment difficulties in Nyasaland and, second, the purchasing power that these thousands of Nyasas have been sending back to Nyasaland and which has been assisting the economy there will be cut off.
Thirdly, ever since the secession decision there has been a general exodus of trained white civil servants, teachers, doctors and so on. On 21st May last

year the First Secretary of State informed me in answer to a Question that there were only four local African doctors and one lawyer. There were no architects or accountants in the whole country. And recently as November, 1963, there were only eight Africans holding posts as administrative grade officers in the Nyasaland Civil Service.
The exodus of Federal and European administrators increased sharply a few months ago due to an increase in violence and a reign of terror sparked off by speeches by Chiume and Chipembere, two of Dr. Banda's Ministers, plus anxiety by white people over the standards of justice meted out in the local courts. I raised this matter in a letter to the Colonial Office and only on 7th of this month I received the following reply:
You will be aware that Patrick Wall raised this matter in the House on the 28th April and Duncan Sandys said in reply that he did not consider that the situation warranted the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. We do, of course, deplore the violence which has taken place but I am glad to be able to say that things are at present much better. … Some of the more violent incidents during this period resulted in cases of murder … I am advised that there were, in fact, nine murders, some of which appear to have had no political motive. The Nyasaland police are doing everything within their power to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice.
So it happened. It caused anxiety to the Colonial Office and it resulted in an increased exodus of the key personnel which the right hon. Member for Enfield, West says should now be staying to assist Nyasaland. Many have left and many more intend to leave, so there are undoubtedly now acute shortages in administration, education, the health services and other technical and professional services. I only hope that more assistance will be forthcoming by Her Majesty's Government and others in order to help Nyasaland over its immediate economic problems.
I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions. Some months ago pressure was brought to bear on Nyasaland students attending University College in Salisbury. I hope that that pressure has now been withdrawn and that the students can freely attend the university. Secondly, I should like to know to what extent the United Kingdom loans and grants are in part or whole being used


to develop a Government newspaper and a Government broadcasting system. Estimates for the year show expenditure running at £13·3 million and anticipated revenue of about £9·1 million. In other words, there would be a deficit of £4¼ million, which I understand is to be met by Her Majesty's Government. In addition, there is Nyasaland's share of the Federal debt, which is £12 million. The new Malawi, therefore, starts its independence with heavy debts and an embarrassing shortage of all kinds of professional and trained personnel.
My personal hope is that a stable but not dictatorial rule will follow, that an economic alliance with Northern Rhodesia is soon established and that some links will remain with Southern Rhodesia, too. Given, also, the firm friendship of Her Majesty's Government, this will encourage economic aid and technical assistance to follow. On that basis, Malawi may well survive. For the sake of all its people and the need of stability in Central Africa, that is my hope, and it is in those terms that I give my blessing to Malawi's independence.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I should begin by apologising to the House for intervening when I have heard only the last two speeches. It had not been my intention to speak in the debate, but I came into the House and heard the very generous and moving tribute which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) paid to Dr. Banda, and I stayed to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), and one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Barnsley in the early part of his speech prompted me briefly to intervene.
Although I have been in the House only a short time, I can claim not to be one of those who have become converted to an admiration for Dr. Banda in recent months. I made my maiden speech in the House in March, 1960 on this subject, and in the course of that speech, when the situation in Nyasaland was very different from the present situation, and when Dr. Banda was in detention in Southern Rhodesia, I urged that he should be brought out of detention and made Prime Minister of Nyasaland. I said that I had heard

many differing accounts of him from people in Nyasaland but that I was certain of one thing—he was the one man who could lead that country; he should be brought out of detention and given the opportunity to do so; and he would be judged on his record.
That has happened, and great credit for it and for the happy sequence of events since then belongs to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). Anybody who went to Nyasaland before he went there as Secretary of State for the Colonies—and I had that opportunity—found it to be an exceedingly unhappy country. In the early months of 1960 it was difficult to see how Nyasaland could go forward to nationhood without great bloodshed and misery. But when I visited Nyasaland again, after my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, had been Secretary of State for some time, I found a complete transformation in mood.
Although I entirely share the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham, because everybody must realise the potential difficulties which a country such as Nyasaland faces, I am sure that the House feels that Dr. Banda has so far fulfilled the trust and the hopes which we and the people of Malawi have placed in him. He goes forward as leader of his fellow countrymen to independence with the good wishes of us all.
The only other point on which I shall comment in the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley is his reference to our attitude to Nyasaland in the past. He said that Nyasaland has never been of any use to imperialism and that we were happy to be rid of it. I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a deep feeling for the Commonwealth and its people and a desire to bring them forward to a better standard of living and to see the maintenance of free institutions there. On many occasions in the House and on public platforms I have expressed views on this subject possibly closer to their views than to those of some of my colleagues.
I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept my sincerity when I tell them that they should make an effort to recognise the


deep-seated emotions which many of us on this side of the House feel about the Commonwealth and the Empire and to accept that it is entirely wrong for them to say that we have regarded the Empire as something from which we were simply seeking a commercial advantage and a military ascendancy in the world and which, as soon as it became a liability, we were ready at once to abandon.
I have two grandparents and four great grandparents buried in overseas Commonwealth territories, and many members; of my party have much closer and more deep-rooted associations with the Commonwealth than that.
I have found the idea of the Commonwealth to be the one which has most moved me in politics. Indeed, it brought me into politics—and into politics in the Conservative Party. It has never been the case that this country has regarded its colonial territories as a source merely of aggrandisement and exploitation. There is a very fine and noble thread running through the whole of our colonial history, and Nyasaland is a particularly good example of this, because it has evoked from our missionaries and from our public servants probably a higher record of service and a greater measure of self-sacrifice in the service of its people than any other part of our Commonwealth. It is true that some people have gone to Nyasaland, and elsewhere, to make money, but so, too, have people gone there in the spirit in which Livingstone went and have evoked from the people of that country the spirit of those Africans who carried Livingstone's dead body through hostile country for 2,000 miles to the sea.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: This is a great and historic day for the House of Commons and for the new Malawi which will arise as a result of the unanimous passing of the Bill. But I believe that the debate is taking place in a somewhat unreal atmosphere. We seem to be forgetting some of the awful events of the last ten years and, as a result, we may be forgetting what a tremendous debt we owe to Malawi for the criminal folly for which this country under Conservative rule has been responsible in the last few years. We

have to understand our responsibility to give economic assistance in the years ahead, as has been mentioned in many speeches today, arising out of our responsibility and our neglect in this respect in the last few years.
Many tributes have been paid to those who have been responsible for the change in our policy towards Nyasaland. Tributes have been rightly paid to the excellent work of a former Colonial Secretary, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). Tributes are due not only to him but to the younger Members on that side of the House, as represented by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell), who took a progressive line in relation to Nyasaland long before that was a popular thing to do, at least on that side of the House.
I believe that the principal tribute which should be paid, at any rate in this House, is to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), who was at the forefront of the attack upon colonialism as represented by the domination of Nyasaland under Imperial rule and during the period of the Federation and who throughout has been consistent and dedicated in his campaigns, particularly as chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom, against the evils against which everybody now speaks. Even those Conservatives who have spoken today have acknowledged, by latter-day emulation, the wisdom of his attitude to Colonialism.
I noticed something resembling humbug towards; the end of the Minister's speech. I regret that blemish on an otherwise excellent moving of the Bill. The blemish was his reference to the happy relations which have always existed between us and the people of Malawi. We can hardly say that. That is a false comment to make, since only a few years ago we were locking up the leaders of Nyasaland because they fought, and rightly fought, against the repressive measures which we had encouraged the Federation, under Sir Roy Welensky, to take against them.
We can hardly say that we have always had friendly relations with the people of Nyasaland when we have denied them the economic assistance they needed to build up the economy of their country, when during these years of colonial rule


many thousands of their people have had to go to seek work outside Nyasaland. We can hardly say that we have always had friendly relations with them when we have attempted to force on the millions in Nyasaland a policy which was opposed by all those millions and supported only by a handful of stooges anxious to get whatever benefit they could out of an association in the Federation.
I regret this unreal atmosphere in this debate, because I believe that we cannot live up to our responsibilities in the future—responsibilities to provide economic assistance and technical assistance, through what I hope will become a Ministry for Overseas Development—unless we ourselves can recognise the guilt that we have for the mistakes which have been made in the past.
On one occasion during the debate I recalled a day just over five years ago—3rd March, 1959—when I was in Lusaka about to catch a plane to go to Nyasaland to stay with Dr. Banda. I was prevented from making that journey. In fact I had to leave the Federation altogether. On that morning Dr. Banda was arrested in his pyjamas, bundled in an undignified way into a police van, and flown off to a gaol in Southern Rhodesia, where he was kept incarcerated for many months. I think that it is a remarkable thing that after suffering that imprisonment Dr. Banda feels such good will towards Britain and the British people. It is a remarkable tribute to the man that he can suffer that experience and, after it, have this friendly feeling towards us. I believe that it augers well for the future of Malawi that he has this friendly feeling towards Britain, despite what he has experienced at our hands.
Much reference has been made during the debate to the economic needs of Malawi. I want to refer to them because, as has been truly said, Malawi is the poorest country of all those which have achieved independence in the years since the war. The average income is only £20 per head per year. The figures detailed in the Monckton Report shows that 132,000 of the people of Malawi are employed in Southern Rhodesia and 20,000 in Northern Rhodesia. Adding those employed in other Territories, particularly in South Africa, the total number working outside Malawi is greater

than the number employed in Malawi itself.
This is a tragedy. These men have to be separated from their wives and families for a long period, because there is no opportunity for them to work in their own country, due to economic neglect. I believe that it is urgently necessary that these men be encouraged to return home, for some of them are very skilled and most energetic. They are the men that Malawi wants within her own boundaries to work up her own economy. They cannot return home, unless work is provided for them.
Work can be provided for them only as a result of a massive investment programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) referred to the economic assistance given to Nyasaland during the period of federation. I believe the figure was £3½ million to £4 million a year. What is so often overlooked—I believe that my hon. Friend overlooked the point—is that the money actually came from the Northern Rhodesian copper mines, in which country there were, as the Monckton Report shows, 20,000 Nyasalanders working, helping to provide the wealth which eventually came to them through the machinery of the Federation. It was not provided by Southern Rhodesia. Southern Rhodesia itself enjoyed many economic advantages by linking to the North. The money that came to Nysaland came from Northern Rhodesia, not from the South.
I hope that a way can be found to maintain the economic links of Northern Rhodesia, or Zambia, as it will be called, and Malawi, so that some of this flow can continue, although it must be recognised that most of the economic resources in Northern Rhodesia will be required for investment in Zambia itself.
Most of the money which will be required for Malawi's economic development must be provided by the industrialised States. I hope that we will be able to press, through the World Bank Group, and particularly in the International Development Association, for a fund to be set up to build up the economy of Malawi. I believe that, as there are more wage-earners outside the Territory than within it, there is a more urgent need to provide opportunities for employment inside Malawi than there


has been in any of the other newly independent States.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley has returned to his seat because I wanted to refer to his astonishing attack on Dr. Banda. I do not believe that he was justified in what he said, particularly about the vaccination campaign. I believe that what was retailed to the House today was propaganda which was spread during the period when "Voice and Vision" experts were doing their best to malign the name of Dr. Banda in their own professional interests and in the interests of maintaining the Federation in existence.

Mr. Mason: My attack on Dr. Banda was not dastardly, as my hon. Friend has described it, but I said that there was one damnable thing, and that was that Dr. Banda did not condemn the superstition which ran rife through Nyasaland when the World Health Organisation team went in to vaccinate. That superstition was that sterility followed vaccination. This happens to be a fact and I challenge any hon. Member opposite to prove to me that Dr. Banda, a medical man, made any statement condemning the superstition and therefore assisting the team.

Mr. Stonehouse: My hon. Friend said quite distinctly in his speech that Dr. Banda took advantage of the tribal superstition of his fellow men for his own personal advantage and I believe that to be entirely untrue. I hope that my hon. Friend will seek an opportunity to withdraw that point. It is a complete reversal of the truth. Dr. Banda has been doing his best to draw his people away from tribal superstitions towards something greater and better, the conception of a nation, the conception of the opportunities to attack the evils of poverty and disease and hunger which will arise as a result of independence. I believe that what was said was quite untrue and I hope that there will be a chance for it to be withdrawn.
Reference has been made to the great dedication of Dr. Banda and his party in achieving the independence of Malawi, but it would be remiss of us to forget his stalwart supporters who sustained him during very tense years when he was

subject to bitter and continuous attack, men like Mr. Kanyama Chiume who stood stalwartly by him and worked hard and was finally able to share in the popular support which has accrued to Dr. Banda and his leading colleagues as a result of their dedicated work on behalf of their fellow men in Malawi.
Independence or sovereignty is not an end in itself and I do not believe that anybody in Malawi believes that the people of Malawi have now reached the end of their endeavours. Independence to them is a stepping-stone to a better way of life. Now they will have the opportunity of putting all their energies into attacking the evils of poverty and under-development in their own country instead of having to waste their energies attacking us, Sir Roy Welensky, the Federation, and the colonial administrators. They can now use their energies and tremendous abilities to build up the economy of their own country. I believe that they can do more through having independence than they could possibly have done if they had been kept under some sort of subjugation. They now have the key to do more for themselves, and it is now our duty to help provide them with (he tools to do the job.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: If I resist the temptation to comment on a number of the remarks which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) has just made, he knows me well enough and we have followed each other in debate often enough for him to appreciate that it is not through lack of readiness to take him on. But having listened to nearly all the speeches today, I do not think that a great deal of good is done by disinterring too many skeletons, because they can be found in the most unexpected places. I assure the hon. Member that I have not been and am not now indebted to "Voice and Vision" tours and never took advantage of its facilities; anyhow I knew the country well before and I have known it too since those facilities were offered.
It does not help the position today to go over these old sores again, because on them a number of points can be made on both sides of the House. One general point which I feel bound to make, however, is that I profoundly resent the idea that a large number of


us on both sides of the House who favoured the conception of the Central African Federation from the very beginning were somehow guilty of backing an imperialist idea of keeping down the black man in his own country. It can be said of Labour Ministers who helped to initiate the Federation and of many others on either side of the House that they thought that it was an imaginative concept and an attempt to get the people of different races to live in these territories independently under a sense of partnership.
If this concept failed it was people who made it fail. It was not the idea itself that failed. The imaginative idea of trying to create a federation was unique. It had not yet succeeded anywhere in the world where people of different races and profoundly different social background lived together. I shall regret that failure for the rest of my life, and I believe that the whole world will live to regret it.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member referred to Labour Ministers who helped to initiate the Federation. Will he acknowledge that the Labour Party always made it clear that the Federation would work only if it had the support of the majority of the inhabitants?

Mr. Bennett: That intervention almost paralyses me. That is exactly what I said. I was deliberately spreading the burden of failure as fairly as I could. Sir Roy Welensky has admitted many mistakes that he has made. Occasionally in his life even the hon. Member for Wednesbury may have made one or two mistakes. On this occasion we ought to be able to say at least that we regret the failure of a great idea while taking in our own consciences our own share of responsibility for what has taken place.
A great deal has been said in the course of the debate about the economic record and the needs of Malawi. Again, I do not think that it was on the economic side that the Federation failed, because whether the funds came largely from the Northern Rhodesia copper mines or not—and we do not know whether they will continue to come in future—from a purely material point of view it can be said that all three terri-

tories in the Federation gained. It was the human side that went wrong, not the economic, and to imagine that because Malawi is to be independent everything in the garden will grow well in future is a fallacy.
To imagine that, with all the best will in the world, we can create a state of prosperity in a country which has tragically few natural resources is to mislead the Malawi people. This should not be said of any country, whatever its Government, if its resources are not sufficient to develop it to a state of prosperity which we would all like to see that country reach. Dr. Banda's Government is in for a tough time ahead because Malawi is a naturally poor country. Too much should not be said in condemnation of the Malawi people having to go abroad to earn a living. If they did not, the country would be a great deal poorer. I am sure that Dr. Banda would not put obstacles in the path of his people going abroad to continue to help earn funds for their country. There is nothing new in that.
I am only upset at the fact that in some cases they have had to go to the Union of South Africa where materialism and economics have clashed so much with human realities. In fact, today its work overseas is an extremely valuable adjunct to Malawi's prosperity or standard of life that people can still go abroad, earn their living elsewhere and then return to their own country. Let us get rid of the idea that because Uhuru comes, suddenly and dramatically minerals and materials which have not existed before are found under the ground and a great flow of investment takes place in Malawi. Investment in what? This is grossly misleading. It will be an uphill battle for a country rich not in material resources but only in energy and skill. Any idea that we may give them tonight that suddenly gold is going to be found under the streets or roads will be completely unreal.
My final point concerns the question of the sort of Government that is likely to emerge in Malawi. The expression of "humbug" was used by an hon. Member opposite when speaking of the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I do not think that was fair. But I do think there is a good deal of national humbug in this country,


among members of all parties. Having ruled with a sort of paternalistic authoritarianism primitive territories all over the world, we imagine that suddenly when we give them a sealed ballot box they will adopt our system, and then we put up our hands in shocked horror when they find this difficult to do.
That sort of attitude is humbug, whoever adopts it. There is no party point here. Hon. Members in all quarters of the House refer to the Westminster pattern. We give these people copies of Erskine May. We send out a mace, which is sometimes used to club the Speaker over the head. Having ruled them with an authoritarian rule, we give them a system of government in which they have had no practice at all, and then we express surprise when things turn out not as we would like them to do.
Of course, we shall not have the Westminster pattern being followed in Malawi. Until recently, when Dr. Banda had the courage and initiative to prevent it the crushing of opposition was reaching scandalous proportions in that country. To his credit he has been the first to admit why he intervened so strongly in February and got all his supporters to try to check the intimidation and terrorism which went on during the period of registration of voters.
My plea to Dr. Banda is simply this. It may be necessary, though we may find it difficult to understand here, in order to maintain law and order in those countries where there are great tribal differences and other immense problems, to use strong-arm methods to prevent complete breakdown within the country. But this situation does not obtain in Nyasaland. There are not great tribal differences, as the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has said. They have a leader to whom 90 per cent. or more of the population are devoted. There is no need for Dr. Banda, in order to maintain his strength in that country, to concur with some of the strong-arm methods that have gone on. Therefore, with the best wishes for the future of that country, we hope that Malawi will maintain democratic standards, even though they may be of their own pattern, for we do not expect them to follow precisely our Westminster ideas. At the

same time, we have a right at least to hope that, while they will have their own pattern of government, they will observe tolerance for such minorities as exist there.
Therefore, I hope that in taking yet another independent member into the Commonwealth, though we cannot expect them to follow precisely our standards, they will not follow the unenviable pattern of one or two other African Governments which I do not think any of us particularly admire today.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: So effective was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) in saying some of the things that I wanted to say that I shall certainly be extremely brief in my remarks. However, one or two things have been said during the debate on which I should like to comment.
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) began his speech by saying that he thought it would not be of any advantage for us to recite past history. He then proceeded to recite past history inaccurately. Whether or not it is an advantage to recite past history, I am sure that it would be better to do so accurately rather than inaccurately.
The hon. Gentleman gave a false impression of the attitude of the leaders of the Labour Party towards African federation when it was initiated. Their view was made absolutely clear at the beginning. Some of them favoured federation for economic or other reasons, but they made it perfectly clear that they would be absolutely opposed to such a measure unless it had the full and clear consent of the people concerned. Indeed, Sir Roy Welensky in the article in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday, which was taken from his book, has confirmed that point up to the hilt.
The difficulties which we have had and which have led to the present situation might never have arisen if representatives of the party opposite had made their views as clear to the leaders of the Federation or the leaders of Southern Rhodesia as the leaders of the Labour Party have done. Therefore, in


that respect I would say that the hon. Gentleman was inaccurate in what he said.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: If an hon. Member comments on another hon. Member's speech I think that it is as well to do so accurately. I thought that I had made the point abundantly clear—I think that it was clear to most of my hon. Friends—that I was talking about the concept of federation as being a great idea and that it was people who had failed. I accept a fair proportion of the blame. If the hon. Member is so smug as to think that hon. Members on his side of the House are all angels I shall be ready for more criticism from him.

Mr. Foot: It is not a question of smugness. It is a question of getting the facts correct. The hon. Member stated the facts inaccurately. I have a perfect right to say that I thought he stated them inaccurately. I think most people will agree that he stated them inaccurately, and that anybody who reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow will be confirmed in that opinion.
The hon. Gentleman also said that we must not lead people in Nyasaland to suppose that the granting of independence will lead to a great pouring out of gold as if the country will be suddenly swamped in prosperity. Nobody has suggested any such thing. Therefore, there was no occasion for the sour lament by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley over the departure of the Central African Federation. Nobody has ever made the suggestion.
The point was answered well in advance by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), who said that it has been proved by experience that if we want to get economic expansion in these countries, it can only be done by Governments which are respected by the people concerned. They will only respect Governments which they have had the right to choose themselves. This is the point which we on this side of the House have been trying to drill into the heads of hon. Members opposite. Whenever we point out this past history they say that we are smug.
This is the central issue which has divided the two sides of the House in

this matter. We have said throughout that these people have the right to choose for themselves. Even if they are illiterate, they have the right to choose for themselves, and some mechanism must be devised so that they may choose for themselves who are to rule them. This has been consistently denied by hon. Members opposite until perilously late—

Sir G. Nicholson: I would call in aid the hon. Member's own father, for whom I had the deepest respect. The hon. Member was not in the House before the war. It was a Conservative Government who put through the Government of India Act, with great help from the hon. Member's father. If the hon. Member's father had been here today he would have been the first to acknowledge the part that the Conservative Government played.

Mr. Foot: Unfortunately, the Government of India Act did not give freedom to India. That is the simple fact. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go back to that controversy, I remind him that my father and many others moved Amendments to the Bill which were rejected by his party at the time. In any case, the India Bill is not relevant to this case, because it did not give freedom to the people of India. This had to be secured by a Bill passed many years later, in 1947, by the Labour Party.
In the case of Nyasaland or Malawi, the facts should be properly recalled. Many tributes have been paid to those who have contributed to the securing of independence for Malawi. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is quite entitled to the tributes paid to him. He took Dr. Banda out of gaol. Apparently, it is bad form to mention in the House that there were people who put him in gaol. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West is applauded for having brought Dr. Banda out of gaol, but someone had put him there in the first place. Dr. Banda was put in gaol on a completely false and trumped-up charge, a charge which not one hon. Member opposite now will get up to defend, not even the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), who interrupted me a few moments ago.
If we are paying tribute to those who helped to secure independence for


Nyasaland, we should also include tributes to Mr. Justice Devlin, as he then was. I do not know whether any hon. Member opposite dissents from that view. It was certainly the Report of Mr. Justice Devlin which powerfully altered the situation. I am not sure how the hon. Member for Farnham voted when the Report was before the House of Commons, but my guess is that he supported his party on the matter.

Sir G. Nicholson: I did.

Mr. Foot: If he supported his party on that occasion, he repudiated Mr. Justice Devlin's Report because the Opposition at that time invited the whole House of Commons to accept the Report, which was precisely what the party opposite refused to do. The entire Government party trooped into the Lobby to support a lie, the lie that there had been a conspiracy in Nyasaland to murder the Governor and the other leaders of the Government. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite walked into the Lobby as a body to support that lie, even after an eminent judge had gone out of this country and, as we thought, proved that it was false. A tribute should be paid to Mr. Justice Devlin, but, unhappily, such a tribute cannot come from right hon. and hon. Members opposite because they did not even accept his Report.
Everyone knows that Mr. Justice Devlin's Report powerfully influenced public opinion in this country. It is interesting to recall when it occurred. It came out only a few months before the last General Election. I remember it very well, because I fought that election, and one of the points on which I fought was that Dr. Banda ought to be released. I attacked the Government who had put him in gaol, who had been responsible for condemning a man unheard for a crime which he had never committed. It was an outrage. That was one of the things on which the British people voted in 1959. They will not be invited to vote on it at the forthcoming election because the Government have crawled out of the responsibilities which they took upon themselves as a result of the way they behaved prior to 1959.
As I say, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West is justified in having

tributes paid to him for trying to expunge from the record the crime which had been committed by his predecessors. But this does not alter the fact that a crime was committed, and the reason why it is relevant now is that the same sort of thing still goes on. I was not in the House at the time, but I remember the reports of the baying of the wolves opposite when the announcement was made about the "murder plot" in Nyasaland. I remember how vicious hon. Members opposite were towards my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough, or anyone else who got up to protest.
They would almost have had the hide off anyone who dared at such a time to suggest that the British Government were not right. I have no doubt also that appeals were made to stand by the man on the spot. As a result of all this, Dr. Banda was put in gaol, and, for months on end, there was in Nyasaland the situation which Mr. Justice Devlin described as a police State.
We had to dismantle all these actions of the Government in order to lead towards the position which we are discussing now. But, of course, in the House today we have seen right hon. and hon. Members opposite behaving in the same way as they did about Nyasaland, baying about Aden as they bayed about Nyasaland a few years ago. Just as they said that Dr. Banda was a criminal who must be put behind bars, without charge and without trial, so they are saying the same about many of the nationalist leaders in Aden or the Yemen today.
We are not discussing something academic here. It is right to note what has happened. I am sure that, in two or three years—it will not be done by the party opposite—a Bill will be introduced in the House of Commons declaring that this country is in favour of independence for Aden and for other States near by. I hope that events will move smoothly. I hope that what we are doing in those territories now will not lead to endless bloodshed. I hope that the countries of South Arabia will be able to move towards independence without terrible bloodshed. It may happen that way, but, one way or another, it will happen.
When hon. Members opposite applaud Measures of this kind and say, with their hands on their hearts, how much they like people to have Governments of their own choice and how proper they think it is, let them search their consciences and explain why they say that what they applaud today for Nyasaland they will not apply to Aden and these other territories in South Arabia, which are fighting for the same cause.
I invite every hon. Gentleman opposite today, for the good of his soul—it would be good for many on this side as well, including my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason)—to go away from this debate and read again the Devlin Report. In that Report, Mr. Justice Devlin described what were the feelings of the people of Nyasaland in the face of the offers which were made under the Central Africa Federation. He described the situation in extremely eloquent language. I apologise for not having the Report with me, because the language which I use will be nowhere near so eloquent as his. He told us that there were people in Nyasaland who preferred their liberty even to the alleviation of their poverty. It was no good saying to the people of Nyasaland, "Here are the economic benefits which you will have in the Central Africa Federation". They were determined to have their freedom first.
This was a very honourable attitude on the part of any people. It is felt by people with various coloured skins. One of the troubles with right hon. and hon. Members opposite, one of the reasons why they have contributed to so much misery throughout the world, is that they have always been pitifully late in understanding the simple fact that people with other skins in different parts of the world prefer their own freedom even above prosperity. Many right hon. and hon. Members opposite prefer it for their own country, so why do not they understand it in other people too?
What we are doing on this occasion is what the House of Commons has done on many occasions hitherto. We are voting independence for a nation to which we had previously denied it. We shall have to do it in a few more cases yet. We do not know how speedily they

will arise. But there is one consistent feature running through all these events, all these abdications from imperialism. Almost without exception, the Conservative Party has been three, four, 10, 50 or 100 years late in coming to the conclusion that other people have as much right to rule themselves as we have to rule ourselves.
I gladly join in all the good wishes expressed to the people of Malawi. I think that they will have many difficulties in the future. All nations which achieve their independence, in any circumstances, have such difficulties. We wish them the very best in overcoming their difficulties. I hope that, in overcoming them, they will sustain as close an association as possible with this country. I want to see this for many reasons. If the miracle happens that people who have been imprisoned by us, denounced by us and defiled by us still wish to retain an association with us, this will be due partly to the magnamity of people like Dr. Banda, but it will be due also to the fact that, running throughout this country's history, there has been a tradition opposed to the imperialist idea.
Throughout the vears, there have been parties and sections of opinion in this country which have denounced every act of imperialism which has been perpetrated by the party opposite. If the British Commonwealth survives, it will be due to that tradition.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Tilney: By leave of the House, I should like to answer some of the questions which have been asked. If I do not answer every question, I will endeavour to write to hon. Members with the facts.
Nearly everyone who has spoken has the advantage of me. I have been to the lovely country of Nyasaland only once, when I landed for about an hour at Blantyre, and I have only once met Dr. Banda, and that was for a very short time. I think that the whole House was warmed and interested by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) which gave us some of the history of what happened when he became Colonial Secretary.
It would be a mistake to go in detail into the past, to which reference has


been made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). I have been able to learn about that lovely and beautiful country only by reading. When I came back from Man o' War Bay, in the Cameroons, the mother of Mr. Alec Dickson, the founder of Voluntary Service Overseas, gave me a book by Laurens van der Post called Venture to the Interior. Ever since, I have wanted to climb Mount Mlanje and to see the lovely Nyika Plateau in the north. The whole House appreciated the tributes which my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) paid to that very remarkable man the Prime Minister of Nyasaland, Dr. Banda.
I turn to the various points which have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) asked why there was no Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. I understand that in Bills of this kind there never has been an Explanatory Memorandum. However, that is an idea which I will endeavour to follow up. The hon. Member asked about dual citizenship. The Nyasaland Constitution is being so framed that, as in the case of Kenya and other African countries, citizens of Malawi will be required to renounce any other citizenship which they may possess.
The hon. Member raised the question of Clause 5(2,c) and asked about the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I understand that in civil cases an appeal will lie as a matter of right to the Judicial Committee in cases whose subject matter is valued at £500 or upwards, matrimonial dissolution or nullity cases and questions as to the interpretation of the constitution. An appeal will lie with the leave of the local courts in civil cases where they think that the exception involved is of sufficient importance. An appeal will lie as of right in criminal cases on questions as to the interpretation of the constitution. An appeal will lie also in any civil or criminal cases with the special leave of the Judicial Committee. The practice governing the giving of leave in criminal cases is well settled; leave will not be given unless there are exceptional circumstances. These are matters which will arise during the Committee stage

and which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be able to answer.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East also asked about the possibility of a change-over to a republic. Surely this is a matter entirely for the people and Government of Nyasaland. I understand that the Prime Minister and his Government asked that Her Majesty should become Queen of Malawi. The hon. Member referred, as did other hon. Members, to the question of law and order. I think that it is as well to bear in mind that in February Dr. Banda made a public statement ordering the cessation of the offences about which several hon. Members have complained. He has since reinforced this order on several occasions and, although in some districts the miscreants have been slow to respond, the situation has improved rapidly. By last month it had almost returned to normal.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to the remarkable leadership of Dr. Banda and of the Governor. In the partnership between the Prime Minister and the future Governor-General we have cause to believe that Nyasaland will go from strength to strength when she becomes Malawi.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked about economic help, as did the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, whom I should like to thank for congratulating me on the honour of introducing this Bill, of which I am deeply conscious. The House should know that the Nyasaland Finance Ministers, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Tembo, are at present in London discussing with the Commonwealth Relations Office the extent of British aid after independence. As many hon. Members have said, Nyasaland presents a major and possibly unique problem in so far as the territory will require considerable aid on recurrent account for a good many years as well as substantial capital assistance. On 17th December last, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the British Government recognised Nyasaland as being in a special position and that they had
in mind the provision of a substantial amount of aid to Nyasaland for some years to


come, both in balancing her budget as well as for capital development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 1169.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham referred to what had happened to the Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe that that has been dealt with, to some extent, by the various speeches made by the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) also referred to them. He was answered, I thought very well, by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell).
The hon. Member for Barnsley, in a speech which one of his hon. Friends I think said was sour—there is, I notice, some division of opinion on the Opposition benches—referred to the economic progress which had been made through federation. It is worth while recalling that the net fiscal benefit which Nyasaland gained from belonging to the Federation was probably about £4 million per annum. She also received improved health services—an extension of hospitals, district clinics, and so on—and improved postal and telecommunications and radio telephone links and additional work was done on the roads. She received a share of substantial development finance which it would have been very difficult for her to raise on her own and she received relief of expenditure on defence and external affairs.
The figures of 1952 compared with 1964 are of interest. In 1952, the ordinary budget expenditure, which did not contain any British aid, was just over £3 million. The comparative figure for 1964 would be of the order of £13 million, which includes £5 million from British sources. The concept of federation, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) spoke very well, produced some extremely satisfactory economic results, and one must accept that. Man does not, however, live by bread alone and many people in the world prefer to govern themselves in poverty rather than to have others give them good government.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Barnsley referred to an economic and brighter future. He asked about students at Salisbury. The standards and facilities which the university college has offered have a deservedly high reputa-

tion. The question of whether Nyasaland chooses to make use of those facilities is a matter for the Nyasas.
The hon. Member also asked about a Government newspaper. He may like to know that this item appeared in the last development plan but has not been pursued. He asked about the broadcasting system. As he will know, broadcasting used to be a federal subject. The present corporation follows the party line, which is not rare in Africa. The British Broadcasting Corporation has trained its staff and has given technical advice, and useful contacts are established between the B.B.C. and the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation. Her Majesty's Government are contributing towards the cost of the M.B.C. by way of budgetary grant in aid and development aid.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) criticised the economic assistance which we had given. Of course, one would like to have given more. We would like to be richer as a country and to be able to give more. The hon. Member criticised as humbug the happy relations to which I have referred between the Malawi people and the people of this country. Certainly, in 1915 and again in 1959 and 1960, relations deteriorated, but with those exceptions I believe that throughout the period when we have been governing Nyasaland, relations have been on the whole extremely good. I cannot but regret that the hon. Member seemed to think that relations had been bad for so long. Of course, we make mistakes, but my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay pointed that out extremely well. Naturally, one would like to give more economic aid, but capital is not unlimited.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury complained that many thousands of Nyasas had to go beyond their frontiers. But do not many thousands of Scots and Irish go overseas? This is not unique to Nyasaland. The world does not really owe any country a living. We all have to make our own living in some way. We would like to be richer. We are determined to help countries much poorer than ourselves, but we have no bottomless purse.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury also asked about higher education. Approximately 120 students are in the


United Kingdom taking a higher education course and about 30 per cent. of them are at universities. I understand that there are others in countries abroad, but I have no details. A polytechnic is being built by the Americans in Blantyre. There is a British principal and we are paying the recurrent costs. An institute of public administration, which is now operating in temporary premises, is being built and it is being financed by C.D and W. funds. This institute will provide courses on law as well as on administration.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) seemed to be unduly critical of the party on this side of the House and of what we have done concerning independence for Colonial Territories. Our whole policy has been to bring independence to the erstwhile Colonial Empire, but it is a matter of time. It is not all that easy to know exactly when independence should be given. We did not want a war, as happened in Indo-China, nor did we want a Congo situation. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale had a great peroration about our being a hundred years too late, but it is interesting that when his party gave up, running away from the economic situation of 1951, there were seven independent members in the Commonwealth and there are now 17. Was it 87 years too late for the Socialist Party?
The hon. Member referred to Aden. He paid no tribute whatever to what the Europeans and the white and free world have done in putting down slavery or tribal warfare or what the Pax Britannica has done in the last decade. I regret the somewhat unfortunate note that the hon. Member introduced.
I was, however, pleased that many hon. Members paid attention to the great work of the Scottish missions. We can contemplate the ties which have bound us to Nyasaland merely by recalling the names of those who laid the historic foundations upon which the independent country which we are now to create have been erected—the faith of David Livingstone, the wisdom of Robert Laws, the energy of Harry Johnston or the skill of Alfred Sharpe. These are some of the men on whom our achievement in Nyasaland has been based.
What history will make of this comparatively short episode in the centuries

which stretch ahead of Malawi, no one can say, but if she has inherited the qualities and can expand the number of such men, she will be fully equipped to face whatever lies ahead. Several generations of British administrators have helped to secure the foundations upon which Malawi must build. I pay tribute to the expatriate service, which has served Nyasaland truly and well. Its contribution has been indispensable and we are all grateful for the loyal service which over the years it has given to Nyasaland and to successive British Governments in the honourable discharge of the responsibility which falls upon the Colonial Power.
This has been an interesting and, in some ways, historic debate. Great praise has been given to the Malawi people and especially to their Prime Minister. I like to remember a Nyanja proverb which says:
The mouth is not the place to praise.
Praise is right through the heart.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committted to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PORTS COUNCIL, AND PRINCIPAL DUTIES THEREOF.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 8, after "charged" insert:
with the duty of formulating and keeping under review, a national plan for the development of harbours in Great Britain and".

6.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is the first of 102 Lords Amendments which have reached us from another place. They fall into three clearly defined categories. Five groups of Amendments introduced by the Government are in fulfilment of undertakings given while the Bill was before this House; 88 are drafting or consequential Amendments; and I think only


about nine are what might be called new Amendments.
This first Amendment is one of the new Amendments, although I think that hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee on the Bill when it was in this House will be familiar with the background. They will recall that the reason for referring to plans for individual harbours in the terms of reference of the National Ports Council was raised in the Committee. We are advised that the original wording in Clause 1(1) covered the formulation of a national plan and that objection to specifying the reference to a national plan was a legal one. There was a danger, if this had been done, that the Council might have been held to be inhibited from tendering advice to any individual harbour authority till such time as a complete national plan had been formulated.
In another place the same question was raised, and in response to widespread feeling that some reference to a national plan should be written into the Bill my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to look at the matter again. The result is to be seen in this Amendment, which, we are assured, cannot be construed as in any way inhibiting advice on an individual basis till such time as a complete national plan is drawn up.
Of course, hon. Members may argue that the Amendment is redundant inasmuch as it adds nothing to the effect of the Bill. While this may be so from a purely legalistic point of view we came to the conclusion that there is some merit in making reference to what is the main task of the Council. I therefore commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: We welcome this Amendment from their Lordships. Clause 1 had a very exciting career, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know. It was taken out, and reviewed, and then made into two separate Clauses. I think that now, at the end of the day, it is right that we should write in these words. Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman said it might not mean much legally, I think that it means a great deal to all of us who are keen

on the future of our ports and dock industry, seeing that the National Ports Council is to be a new body charged with considering individual requirements of individual ports and harbours but will also, quite properly, be concerned with a national plan.
We would not have thought that the Council would have a blueprint of a national plan in front of it at this time, but it will have one in mind, and the work done on an individual port basis must have the national plan in mind, and we hope that it will not be long before we actually see that blueprint. I look forward to it. We welcome this Amendment enthusiastically.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(PROMOTION BY THE COUNCIL OF RESEARCH, AND TRAINING AND EDUCATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 32, leave out
in such manner as may be so specified".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another new Amendment which takes away my right hon. Friend's power to specify, when making a direction to the Council, in what manner training should be carried out. It was argued in another place that it is unnecessary to empower the Minister to give directions upon a matter of detail which persons undertaking training would be better qualified to judge. We accept that there is some force in that argument. We believe that relations with the Council will be so close that no serious differences of opinion are likely to arise on this particular point and I therefore commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. James H. Hoy: This is an Amendment we should also like to support, because, after all, the Clause does make provision that when schemes are being drawn up they will be drawn up in consultation with the Minister. It would really be too much if, after consultation and agreement, the Minister could then have the right to specify. Inasmuch as there is general agreement which has been reached and the Minister cannot go back on it, we


think that the Amendment improves the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 15, at end insert:
(5) The Council may make, in or towards satisfaction of expenses incurred by them in promoting research into any matter at the instance or with the consent of any person or body, charges of such amounts as may be agreed between them and that person or body.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, again, is a new Amendment. It enables the Council to charge persons, only with those persons' agreement, for research which is promoted by the Council. It arose from the suggestion made in another place for widening the Council's power for research, and this power, in our judgment, is a useful and reasonable one. It would enable the Council to make charges in respect of research as it may in respect of education and training—that is to say, on behalf of any authority or special interest which wants research itself, and is prepared to pay for it in whole or in part.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 21, leave out from "person" to end of line 23 and insert:
in respect of his receiving any such training or education".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, which is in response to an undertaking which was given in this House on Report, clarifies the wording of Clause 3(5) so as to ensure that it clearly precludes the Council from charging workers in the industry for training and education which the Council promotes under the Clause. The new wording makes it clear beyond all doubt that individual workers will not be charged for training and education.

Mr. Mellish: Out of courtesy I should like to thank the Minister for complying with the undertaking that he gave. It is very satisfactory. It is satisfactory that

workers in the industry should not be charged.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR THE COUNCIL.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 16, at end insert:
(c) provide for requiring a harbour authority to whom the scheme relates to furnish to the Council such information as the Council may require for the purposes of the scheme, being information relating to any harbour which that harbour authority are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing, to any activities carried on by them at such a harbour or to any property used by them for the purposes of such a harbour, and for requiring the verification of any information furnished in pursuance of a requirement having effect by virtue of this paragraph.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a new Amendment which strengthens the arrangements for raising the levy by introducing a provision which places harbour authorities under the express obligation to supply any information required by the Council to enable it to assess the amount of any charges to be imposed on harbour authorities under a levy scheme. It forms part of Clause 4(3), which lays down what may be included in a scheme.
The Amendment was introduced in another place at the request of the National Ports Council which was concerned about whether it would be possible for it to obtain sufficient information to ensure that any levy scheme was fair. Earlier, we had thought that the Council could rely on its powers under Clause 39 to obtain information for a levy scheme, but it is now plain that this might have given rise to considerable administrative difficulties for the Council. For example, it would have been necessary for it to give notice in writing in seeking information.
By the provisions of this Amendment it would be practical for the Council to prepare a scheme placing an obligation on harbour authorities under the Clause in effect to provide for the necessary information. This Amendment has been framed solely to provide


the sort of information which might be required for a levy scheme—for example a statement of revenue, and so forth. It is also necessary because the allocation of the levy will depend on figures produced, that there should be provision for verification. Information under this Clause can only be required for the purpose of a scheme. Information under Clause 39, in contrast, relates more generally to harbour operations. I commend the Amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 20, at end insert:
including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, provision for imposing penalties in respect of a failure to comply with a requirement having effect by virtue of the last foregoing paragraph to furnish information, so however that no provision imposing such a penalty shall be so framed so as to permit of a person's being punished otherwise than on his summary conviction, or as to permit of the infliction on him of a penalty other than a fine, or of the infliction on him of a fine exceeding £50 or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, of a fine exceeding £200.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which we have just agreed to. It provides the penalties for failure to comply with the obligations imposed by that Amendment.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I think that this Amendment deserves comment. We are here concerned with the duty of the Council to work out and impose schemes whereby the Council's own funds may be forthcoming. That is the background. We entirely acknowledge the appropriateness and desirability of a provision that in these circumstances the Council should have the right and power to require information from harbour authorities. Although it may be logical to introduce this Amendment and to have a formal sanction, I very much hope that there will never be occasion to bespeak these penalties. The only occasion on which this can arise will be when the Council, seeking to develop a scheme to collect funds for itself, asks for information from harbour authorities and is denied it. It seems to me that

it would be a very melancholy state of affairs should that occur.
My hon. Friends and I would, on the whole, have thought the matter sufficiently met by the previous Amendment. Although we acknowledge that in strict logic it is reasonable and appropriate to have a sanction, this matter is so unlikely to arise, I would hope, that the formal penalty provision seems to be a somewhat unwelcome proposal.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9.—(CONTROL OF HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 13, leave out from "for" to end of line and insert:
use in the execution of any such works as aforesaid or for use as mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, which remedies a deficiency in the wording of subsection (1,c) of the Clause, is a drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed

Clause 10.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CONTROL OF HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 46, leave out "constructing".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I gather that the Opposition do not think that this is a drafting Amendment. The object is, by omitting the word "constructing", to make the reference to
improving, maintaining and managing of a harbour
in line 46, correspond with that in lines 38 and 39.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: We have a point in mind as being of some significance on this Amendment. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be good enough to deal with it, and, if he thinks there is no substance in it, perhaps explain why.
We are dealing here, as I understand it, with the powers of the Minister's officers to inspect documents. As the Bill stands, there is power, as we read it—it is not a very felicitously worded provision—to inspect documents relative to the construction, improvement, maintenance and management of a harbour. We cannot understand why it should be proposed to diminish the Minister's power in this respect and deprive him of the right to inspect documents relative to construction.
It would not quite meet our doubts if it were said that this made the category conform with a category appearing elsewhere in the Clause, because the matter of inspection and the right to inspect is a separate matter and a separate right from those dealt with elsewhere. I trust that we have our made our difficulty plain. We certainly do not regard this as a drafting Amendment, and we should be grateful for some explanation of, and, if possible, justification for, it.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I am not sure that I will be able to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman at this moment. We were certainly under the impression that this was purely a drafting Amendment to bring two provisions within some five lines or so into conformity. I am not clear why the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the word "constructing" should be allowed to creep in here.

Mr. Hoy: It has not crept in. It was printed into the Bill by the Minister. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now proposing to "creep" it out. That is the object of the Lords Amendment now before the House. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to argue that "constructing" did not appear five lines earlier in the subsection, ought not his Amendment to have been to insert "constructing" in line 38 rather than delete it here?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If I may speak again by leave of the House, the expression
improving, maintaining and managing a harbour
occurs over and over again throughout the Bill It is the legal method of

describing a harbour authority—persons engaged in doing that.
As to my use of the words "creep in", although I do not wish to libel the Parliamentary draftsmen I think that "constructing" must have been inserted here originally by mistake, because throughout the rest of the Bill we define a harbour authority as engaged in "improving, maintaining and managing". I am not clear what purpose would be served by inserting "constructing" at this point in the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: If I may speak again by leave of the House, we are dealing here with control of harbour development. Clause 9(1,a) sets out a number of projects which come within the ambit of the Clause. The paragraph reads:
the execution of works for the construction, improvement or repair of a harbour".
Therefore, it is not quite right to say that "construction" creeps in at the point that we are discussing when this juxtaposition of words occurs elsewhere. If "construction" is met alongside "improvement or repair" in Clause 9, and "constructing" alongside "improving" in Clause 10, those who are concerned with the operation of the Clause may reasonably think that there is some serious practical reason for the distinction.
We think that there should be a power for the Minister's officers to make an inspection of documents relative to construction as well as the documents relative to improvement and maintenance when construction and improvement are dealt with side by side on a similar fooling in the rest of the Bill.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I now see the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making. I can only say that our advice is that the omission of "constructing" here will not diminish the powers which my right hon. Friend will have in any material way in this case.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 16, leave out from "of" to "prohibition" in line 17 and insert:
a contravention, or an apprehended contravention, of, or a failure to comply with, any such".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, too, in our submission, is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: I understand that this Amendment and the following Amendments to No. 31 inclusive are regarded as drafting Amendments. If that is so, seeing that we have just got the Minister in some sort of trouble, it might help if they were all taken together.

Mr. Speaker: If that is the accepted view of the House, perhaps we might.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not think that Amendment No. 20 can be described entirely as a drafting Amendment. It certainly calls for explanation.

Mr. Speaker: The suggestion was made with the best intentions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13.—(MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF LOANS AND GRANTS UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12, AND CESSER OF CERTAIN OTHER POWERS TO GIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 17, leave out "harbour or pier" and insert:
or pier elsewhere than at a harbour which is for the time being a fishery harbour or marine work or for the purposes of a harbour which is not for the time being a fishery harbour or marine work.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, technically, is a new Amendment, although I would be prepared to agree that it might be described as a drafting Amendment inasmuch as it corrects a mistake in the Bill as originally drafted. It alters Clause 13 by excluding fishery harbours and marine works in the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), which requires that no advance or loan shall be made under Section 9 of the Public Loans Act, 1875.
The House will recall that a large number of Amendments were moved in Standing Committee and on Report with the object of bringing fishery harbours and marine works within the scope of the Bill. One of the unintended effects of these changes in the Bill was that fishery

harbours and marine works were disqualified, I must confess inadvertently, from getting financial assistance from the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
The Amendment puts this right and ensures that these harbours will continue to be eligible for this form of assistance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14.—(MINISTER'S POWER, ON APPLICATION OF HARBOUR AUTHORITIES OR OTHERS, TO MAKE ORDERS FOR SECURING HARBOUR EFFICIENCY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 21, after "section" insert—
and to the following provisions of this Act".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which comes later, Amendment No. 32.
Amendment No. 32 will seek to introduce a new Clause to authorise the payment of compensation in certain circumstances. In the hope and the expectation that the House will accept the new Clause, I ask hon. Members to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Am I right in thinking that it seems to be the general view that the remaining Amendments down to the bottom of page 3 are all of a drafting character, linked with the next Clause?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Amendment No. 32 is a new Amendment, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I must apologise. I was taking too hopeful a line.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: in page 13, line 40, at end insert:
or of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods or passengers by sea.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment amplifies the description in Clause 14(2) of the basic requirements for harbour revision orders and brings it into line with the harbour maintenance orders Clause 16(3). It does this by adding to the wording of


Clause 14(2) so as to allow the appropriate Minister to make a harbour revision order if he is satisfied that it would facilitate efficient and economic transport by sea.
Legally, it may be questionable whether it makes any effective addition to the meaning of the paragraph. However, we have been pressed at intervals, ever since the Bill was first published, to bring this part of the wording of Clause 13 into line with Clause 14, and as there can be no objection to making assurance doubly sure I commend the Amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

New Clause A.—(COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OFFICE, &C., IN CONSEQUENCE OF ORDERS AND SCHEMES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 11, at end insert new Clause "A":
A.—(1) The Minister shall by regulations make provision requiring such person or body, being a person or body subject to any of the provisions of a harbour reorganisation scheme, as may be determined by or under the regulations to pay, subject to such exceptions or conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations, compensation to, or in respect of, persons who are or, but for any national service of theirs would be, the holders of any such situation, place or employment as may be so prescribed and suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of any of the provisions of the scheme.
(2) Where it is proposed to make a harbour revision order or a harbour empowerment order, the Minister of the Crown by whom the order is to be made shall consider whether any person, who is, or but for any national service of his would be, holder of any situation, place or employment with a person or body subject to any of the provisions of the order, might if the order were made, suffer any loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of any of the provisions of the order; and if it appears to that Minister that such a person who is or would be the holder of such a situation, place or employment might suffer any such loss or diminution in consequence as aforesaid and that, if he does, compensation should be paid in respect thereof, that Minister shall not make the order unless he is satisfied that it secures that there will be paid to or in respect of that person, if he suffers any such loss or diminution in consequence as aforesaid, compensation corresponding, as near as may be, to that payable by virtue of regulations made under subsection (1) of this section to or in respect

of the holder in similar circumstances of a similar situation, place or employment, in respect of similar loss or diminution suffered in consequence of any of the provisions of a harbour reorganisation scheme.
(3) Different regulations may be made under subsection (1) of this section in relation to different classes of persons, and any such regulations may be so framed as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision thereof is to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made shall not place any person other than a harbour authority in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been so framed as to have effect only as from the date on which they are made.
(4) Regulations made under subsection (1) of this section may include provision as to the manner in which and the person to whom, any claim to compensation is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations.
(5) In this section "national service" means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be prescribed by regulations under subsection (1) of this section.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This new Clause has been proposed to honour an undertaking that I gave in Committee to introduce a new Clause to provide for compensation of harbour employees who might suffer through the operations of the Bill. The Clause has two objects. First, subsection (1) covers the making of the regulations to provide for the payment of compensation where a person suffers loss of employment or loss of pay or pension rights as a result of a harbour reorganisation scheme. Secondly, subsection (2) gives my right hon. Friend the task of deciding the appropriate cases where the harbour revision and empowerment orders should provide for payment of compensation comparable with the harbour reorganisation scheme to persons who suffer the same sort of loss.
Subsection (1) covers the case where a harbour reorganisation scheme transfers rights and powers to another body. It requires the Minister of Transport to make regulations providing for the payment of compensation to persons who suffer loss of employment or diminution of emoluments or pension rights as a direct result of the scheme. Subsection (2) requires the Minister,


as I explained before, when he makes a revision order or an empowerment order, to consider whether any person might suffer loss of employment, etc., again as a direct result of the order. If this is so and he decides that compensation is appropriate as under a harbour reorganisation scheme, it ensures that comparable compensation will be paid.
This new Clause follows precedents in the Water Resources Act, 1963, and the Transport Act, 1962. The principle that underlies it is that where Parliament foresees the taking by a Minister of statutory action likely to produce redundancy which arises solely from that action, the Minister should make regulations applying a code of compensation. The code normally adopted is that known as the Crombie Code. The standards of compensation that this Code provides are generous both in the long term and the short term.
7.0 p.m.
The Code has been applied to the merger of water authorities and various organisations in the nationalised transport industry, but has not been applied to cases where redundancy does not flow directly from statute. For example, those caused by railway closures under the Beeching Plan are eligible not for the Crombie Code but for compensation agreed between the Railways Board and the unions.
The Government have, over the years, in the Crombie Code and in other arrangements for industrial compensation, therefore provided two different but quite consistent bases for compensation. In accordance with this principle it is the intention that the Minister shall make regulations under subsection (1) applying the Crombie Code to all persons who suffer loss in consequence of a harbour reorganisation scheme and requiring compensation to be paid in accordance with the Code.
But the situation arising as a result of harbour revision and empowerment orders would be less clear. Some orders—for example, those providing for replacement of existing authorities—might be more appropriate for the Crombie Code of compensation. In other cases, although compensation

might be provided it would not be appropriate to apply the Crombie Code if loss of employment arose from action to increase, say, the efficiency of the port or merely as a result of changes in the level of trading at the port. Subsection (2) therefore leaves it to the Minister to decide which system should be adopted.

Mr. Hoy: We are grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for accepting this Clause, which seeks to safeguard the wages and pension rights of workers engaged by harbour authorities, but the House should know that it is in no way a golden handshake, such as we read about in other instances. What perturbed us about this was that action might be taken under this Bill which would result in certain people engaged in the industry losing a considerable amount of wages and—even more important—their pension rights. We sought to have some safeguard and the Minister has now agreed to this provision.
Obviously, this is of tremendous importance to the workers in the industry. Were the trade unions consulted about it? If this is to work it is important to know that they have been consulted and that their agreement has been sought, for this might affect a considerable number of people. I am certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends, while welcoming the Amendment, would like some assurance that the unions were consulted before this Clause was put down.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The unions were consulted and, indeed, it was the amount of consultation that was necessary which prevented us from bringing this provision before the House on Report stage. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I gave an undertaking to Committee to bring this forward.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 19.—(ORDERS FOR ESTABLISHING SCHEMES FOR CONTROL OF MOVEMENT OF SHIPS IN HARBOURS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 46, after "contravention" insert
(i) of the infliction on him of imprisonment except in a case where the offence was


committed recklessly or wilfully or, as the case may be, the failure or contravention was reckless or wilful; or
(ii) in the said excepted case,

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a new Amendment. There was some criticism in Committee and on Report stage of the penal Clause associated with control of movement orders. In Committee, the Opposition moved an Amendment which would have deleted imprisonment as a possible punishment. I explained then how serious might be the consequences of deliberate disobedience of one of these orders and the Amendment was not pressed.
On Report stage the Opposition moved an Amendment to reduce the maximum period of imprisonment from six months to three months. The Government resisted this and the Amendment was negatived on a Division. In another place, similar arguments were advanced against leaving the possibility of imprisonment in the Bill. However, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor set forth, with great force and clarity, reasons why there should be this sanction against wilful and reckless disobedience of a control of movement order. Several of their Lordships, however, suggested that the sanction should be confined to cases where the prosecution was able to prove that the infringement was reckless or wilful. That is what the Amendment does.
There are precedents for having, as it were, two degrees of the same offence carrying different maximum penalties. An analogy is to be found in the Merchant Shipping Act itself, where the offence of disobeying collision regulations is punishable by imprisonment if caused by wilful default. Again, a number of the Articles of War in the Naval Discipline Act carry different penalties. Turning to the general criminal law, the crime of unlawful wounding offers an analogy. The crime of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm is a felony, whereas unlawful wounding by itself is a misdemeanour and carries a lower maximum penalty accordingly.
I hope that the Amendment will go a long way to ease the misgivings of hon. Members who fear that imprisonment

might be imposed for offences which might be of a comparatively minor or technical nature.

Mr. Mellish: I can understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman looking at this Amendment with mixed feelings. He was an ardent supporter of the Clause as it stood and would not give way on this point despite repeated efforts by us. We have always believed that this part of the Bill was written by him and he seems to confirm that by referring to the Naval Discipline Act. I am not sure what that has to do with the Bill.
The penalties which the Bill included when it left this House for another place were not even contained in an international convention. We considered these penalties to be unrealistic. Their Lordships, about whom one can have certain views, have succeeded where we failed. I can understand how the hon. and gallant Gentleman feels but this is a tremendous improvement and we welcome it.
We believe that this penalty should have been wiped out altogether but we must be grateful for what we have been able to obtain. But at least now, before imprisonment can be imposed, it must be proved that the captain had wilfully or recklessly ignored the order and thereby caused the great damage which would undoubtedly follow.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 25.—(CHARGES OF CERTAIN HARBOUR AUTHORITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 39, leave out "charges" and insert "dues".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
During the Report stage I undertook that we would restore the requirement that certain charges should be reasonable. But I warned at the time that the restoration of this requirement would not be a simple matter. That is the reason for the large number of Amendments following upon this one. Indeed, the next 13 Amendments stem from this change.
Since the Amendment is rather complicated the House may find it helpful


and it may save time if I indicate briefly what will be achieved. The position is not changed as far as ship, passenger and goods dues are concerned. Such charges will continue to be at the discretion of the harbour authorities but will be subject to objection made to the Council by users. This discretion is contained in the amended Clause 25 for non-nationalised ports and in the amended Clause 26 for nationalised harbours, while the objection procedure is covered by Clause 29. Charges other than ship passenger and goods dues will in general be subject to the requirement that they must be reasonable.
There are at present charges which are entirely at the discretion of a harbour authority, and it has been decided that these should continue on that basis. They are, however, comparatively few and the great bulk of charges other than dues will be subject to the requirement of reasonableness. This is covered by new Clause B. In addition, a harbour authority may wish to levy new charges and may not have the necessary powers in its own Acts to do so. For this reason, the power to levy charges has been added to the objects for which harbour revision orders may be made in Schedule 2.
Although restoring the requirement that charges should be reasonable has proved very much more complicated than even we had expected, I believe that the Clause as amended gives a fair degree of freedom of charging to harbour authorities and at the same time protects the legitimate interests of users.
This is the first of 11 closely-linked Amendments which have the effect of making Clause 25 apply only to ship, passenger and goods dues.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause B.—(CERTAIN CHARGES OF CERTAIN HARBOUR AUTHORITIES TO BE REASONABLE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 46, at end insert new Clause "B":
B.—(1) In place of any limitation imposed, by a statutory provision made with respect to them in particular, on the discretion of a harbour authority as to charges (of any kind other than excepted charges) that may be made

by them at a harbour which, in the exercise and performance of statutory powers and duties, they are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing (not being a limitation by way of expressly providing for freedom from charges or in any other manner prohibiting the making of a charge or by way of providing, by what form of words soever, that the charges shall be such as may be reasonable), there shall, by virtue of this subsection, be imposed the limitation that the charges shall be such as may be reasonable.
(2) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection the following shall be excepted charges, namely,—

(a) ship, passenger and goods dues;
(b) charges ascribable to the running of a ferry service in or from a harbour;
(c) contributions which, by virtue of a provision included in an order under Part IV of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923 by virtue of section 38(1)(d) of that Act, fall to be assessed on several fisheries or the owners or occupiers thereof;
(d) duties on licences granted under section 61 of the said Act of 1923 to fish;
(e) charges in respect of licences under the Water Resources Act 1963 to abstract water or in respect of water authorised by such licences to be abstracted.

(3) In this section 'harbour authority' has the same meaning as in the last foregoing section.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, again, is consequential to the same undertaking. The new Clause introduces the requirement that the charges of harbour authorities to which the Clause relates should be reasonable. It gives effect to the decision that charges other than ship, passenger and goods dues should be subject to this requirement. The Clause applies broadly to non-nationalised harbours, nationalised harbours being dealt with by a later Amendment.
The Clause provides that authorities at present subject to some limitation, such as being subject to Ministerial approval, shall in future be subject only to the requirement that they are to be reasonable. Those which must at present be reasonable will so continue and those which are at present wholly at the discretion of the authority will so remain.
Subsection (2) provides that ship, passenger and goods dues are excepted from the provisions of the Clause because they are covered by Clause 25. Certain charges which were excepted from the charging provisions of the Bill by Clause


35 have now been placed in this subsection so that their exception will flow from the new Clause instead of from Clause 35 which a later Amendment proposes to delete.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: This is an important matter. What the Bill does is to remove existing ceilings, so to speak, which have been imposed by various Statutes, some public and others private, upon the charges which may be imposed by harbour authorities. This very sweeping and remarkable change in the law attracted a good deal of attention at an earlier stage of our consideration of the Bill.
On this side of the House we took the view that it was too drastic a change and that at the very least there should be introduced into the Bill a requirement that new charges should be reasonable charges. We felt that this was not merely playing with words, but that if that provision occurred in the Bill it would be open for a member of the public to commence proceedings, perhaps for an injunction, in the event that he regarded any particular charge as unreasonable and the court was satisfied that it was unreasonable.
I readily acknowledge that some concession has been made to us and we are grateful for the thought and consideration which have been given to our arguments, but we are disappointed that this concession is of such limited application. I would have thought that it was appropriate that this requirement of reasonableness should be of universal application and not, as it is, wholly confined to two cases, the case where there is already a requirement of reasonableness and the case where a statutory limit is imposed by an existing Statute, a limit which is now removed, reasonableness taking its place.
This is a very limited ambit for the application of what ought to be a universal concept of reasonableness in all charges. When one considers that and, in addition, the lavish exemptions in subsection (2), one is aware that one is dealing with a concession far less substantial than we had hoped and far less substantial than is appropriate in the public interest.
I do not want to make too much of this, but it is just possible that the harmful effects might not be all entirely negative in character. It could reasonably be argued that if charges in this comparatively small section are to be reasonable and must, by Statute, be reasonable, by implication, harbour authorities and others concerned, all kinds of boards and authorities concerned with the determination of tariffs and charges for goods and harbour services, might be tempted to think that they were in a freer position to impose unreasonable charges than were the persons affected by the narrow ambit of the wording of the new Clause. There might be not merely what we regard as the disappointingly negative effect of what is proposed, but a positively harmful effect.
Although we are at a late stage in our consideration of the Bill, this is an extremely important matter and what is being done should be fully understood. A whole series of significant and important restraints upon authorities are being swept away, some of them restraints imposed by Parliament very recently in public Acts, as recently as 1962.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: And old ones as well.

Mr. Irvine: There was to have been no limit but as a result of considerable pressure from this side of the House the concept of reasonableness, was admitted. But when we find that that concept is introduced over such a very limited field, and subject to such considerable exceptions, we feel that it is a disappointing outcome. The result is of great importance to transport and commerce in the country, and we believe that the outcome is unsatisfactory.
We wish it to be clearly understood that, it having been decided that the concept of reasonableness should be introduced to take the place of an elaborate pattern of statutory restraints, we regret that it should have such a limited effect as it has here, and be subject to so many important exemptions.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: For once, I find myself in disagreement with the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). I hope that he has misread this portion of the Bill, because I claim that in view


of the various Amendments which were introduced in another place the undertaking which I gave on Report has been fulfilled precisely. I did not say that we would restore reasonableness in all cases. I said that we would restore as it were the status quo and that, as far as is possible, is what we have done.
There have always been a few charges—a very small percentage of the total—which have been exempt from any requirement at all. Under the Amendment it is those charges, and those only, which remain exempt from any requirement of reasonableness or any control whatever. There is nothing new in that.
I think that I should interpose in my remarks a reminder to the House that we are not dealing with the dues charged for ships, passengers or goods. In this "reasonable" requirement we are discussing only charges which harbour authorities make for various facilities and services. It is true that in certain cases those charges, instead of being subject to the requirement of being reasonable, were laid down within certain limits in the local harbour legislation. In all cases where that was so before, they are now subject to the requirement of being reasonable.
As regards ship, passenger and goods dues, I am sure that I do not have to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that although harbour authorities are free to impose their own charges, there is the safeguard of an appeal to the National Ports Council under Clause 29. But that has nothing directly to do with this group of Amendments, which are concerned not with dues but with the charges for services, and it was there that we promised to write in "reasonable", where reasonable had been the requirement before. I assure the House that that is what the Amendment does.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am not suggesting that this does not live up to the undertaking given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Our complaint is that he did not undertake enough.

Mr. Michael Coulson: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for keeping the promise which he made on 16th March to see whether an Amendment could be intro-

duced in another place to enshrine in the Bill the principle of reasonableness.
I do not think that the new provision in the new Clause is quite so simple as it looks on paper, or that it will prove quite so simple in operation. Indeed, I share some of the misgivings expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) about the actual scope of this Amendment. I share his view that perhaps there is a need for a much more extensive review of the whole system of charges.
I do not wish to repeat what I said to the House during the Report stage of the Bill. I merely wish to say how important I consider the criterion of reasonableness to be. During recent months there has been considerable disquiet in Hull over the question of dock haulage charges for timber. At least part of the disquiet has been due to the fact that no such criterion of reasonableness was inserted for that sort of charge in the 1962 Transport Act, so that however high the charges were fixed by the British Railways Board and by the British Transport Docks Board, there was no way in which users could find out whether any charges which were imposed were justified, or indeed by what standards those charges were arrived at. In other words, there was no way of testing whether the charges were reasonable.
Fortunately, I understand that agreement has been reached between the port users, the timber importers, and the Docks Board to have conversations, and, in fact I gather that there may well be an inquiry into the whole question of timber handling and charges, and the general economic set up of timber handling at British transport docks. This is extremely desirable. It has taken a long time to reach this sort of agreement, and it has involved a lot of doggedness, perhaps even stubbornness on the part of the timber importers, but it has produced the right result to the satisfaction of everybody concerned. If the principle of reasonableness had been inserted in the 1962 Act, perhaps all this heartburn would have been saved. I support the Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: My view is slightly different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon


Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) and opposed to that of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). I think that the Amendment has the right tone. We do not want to go too far in restricting the flexibility of charges.
One of the great difficulties of the old Harbour Acts was that they were much too rigid, and that they restricted development of the ports. Many of the ills from which we have suffered in the ports arose from this lack of flexibility, and I think that we have obtained about the right measure here. I am glad that there is not any further restriction on that flexibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26.—(REPEAL OF PROVISIONS LIMITING CHARGES AT CERTAIN HARBOURS OWNED OR MANAGED BY NATIONALISED TRANSPORT BODIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 3, leave out "charges made" and insert:
ship, passenger and merchandise dues chargeable".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on all the Amendments to Clause 25 which make that Clause apply only to ship, passenger and goods dues. It alters the Clause so that it also deals only with the same dues. By so doing it puts dues at the nationalised ports on the same basis as dues at the non-nationalised harbours.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28.—(DUTY OF HARBOUR AUTHORITIES TO MAKE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION, AND TO KEEP FOR SALE, COPIES OF LISTS OF CERTAIN CHARGES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 35, after "exigible" insert "(a)".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a new Amendment, and it is linked with Amendments No. 50, 51, 52 and 53. Together these Amendments change one of the charges provisions of the Bill by bringing the nationalised transport boards within the scope of the Clause from the point of view of making lists of charges available for inspection.
As drafted, the Clause provides for the publication of these dues only by non-nationalised harbours and local lighthouse authorities. The requirement on this matter for nationalised ports is to be found in the 1962 Transport Act. The requirement placed by that Act on the boards differs from that placed on non-nationalised harbours by the Bill, because the boards are required to publish all their charges whereas this Clause requires publication only of ship, passenger and goods dues.
We feel that the boards should be put on the same basis as non-nationalised harbours. That is effected by these Amendments which bring the boards under the wing of this Clause, and by a later Amendment to Schedule 6 which provides for the repeal of paragraph 6(1) of the Ninth Schedule to the Transport Act. I repeat that the next four Amendments are directly linked with this one.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 37.—(REPEAL OF SECTIONS 30 AND 47 OF HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS CLAUSES ACT 1847.)

Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 10, leave out Clause 37 and insert new Clause "C":
C.—(1) The following provisions shall cease to have effect, namely,—

(a) sections 30 (power to vary rates) and 47 (list of rates to be set up) of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (both as originally enacted and as incorporated in any Act or order);
(b) any statutory provision (other than the said section 47 or one in this Act) applying to a harbour authority in so far as (however it is expressed) it requires a list of charges imposed by the authority in the exercise of their powers as such to be published;
(c) section 17 (rates to be equally levied) of the General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act and any other statutory provision applying to a harbour authority in so far as (however it is expressed) it prohibits the authority from discriminating in the matter of charges imposed as aforesaid against any person in favour of any other person.

(2) In the foregoing subsection 'harbour authority' does not include any such person as is mentioned in section 25(5)(c) of this Act.
(3) The Shipping Dues Exemption Act 1867 (which precludes the according of certain exemptions from shipping dues and empowers the Minister to abolish dues from which an exemption exists) is hereby repealed.

7.30 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Although this is a new Clause, the Amendment is little more than a drafting one. It extends the scope of the repeal provisions in Clause 37 by omitting that Clause and substituting a new one altogether. Clause 37 as it is at present provides that Sections 30 and 47 of the Harbours. Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, should cease to have effect. Section 30 contains requirements for equality of charging which would be contrary to the provisions of the Bill, which do not prohibit differential charging. Section 47 of the 1847 Act deals with publishing lists of rates, which is covered by Clause 28.
Certain harbour authorities, and this is really the chief point of the Amendment, do not incorporate the provisions of the 1847 Act in their own local legislation. Clause 37 had to be revised to cover comparable provisions in Sections 30 and 47 of the 1847 Act in the local enactments, and this new Clause covers these provisions. It also takes the opportunity of repealing the provision in the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to the levying of discriminatory charges.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38.—(AMENDMENTS OF ACTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTIONS 25 TO 37.)

Lords Amendment: In page 45 line 25, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) For paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to the Transport Act 1962 there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'5.—(1) The charges made by any of the Board for the use of services or facilities provided in, or in connection with, a harbour specified in this Schedule (other than ship, passenger and goods dues, charges for the carriage of goods or passengers on any railway, charges for the use of a railway or charges in respect of railway wagons) shall be such as may be reasonable.
(2) In this paragraph the expression "ship, passenger and goods dues" has the meaning assigned to it by section 55(1) of the Harbours Act 1964';
and in paragraph 6(2) of that Schedule for the words 'for which the charges are regulated by' there shall be substituted the words 'specified in'.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on the undertaking given on Report to restore "reasonable" to most of the charges.

Mr. Mellish: Can we be assured that there is to be parity between the harbour authorities and the nationalised boards? I want to get that perfectly clear in my mind. It is sometimes very hard to follow the words of a Measure because so much legal jargon is used. Is there now no bias against the nationalised boards?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I had the feeling that the House thought that I was going too slowly, but I realise that I was probably going too quickly. The hon. Member has put his finger on one of the particular purposes of the Clause, because just as the new Clause "B", which was introduced by Amendment No. 47, applies this requirement of reasonableness to non-nationalised harbour authorities so this Amendment applies it to the nationalised harbour boards.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in so far as it is practicable, the two groups of harbours are now put on absolutely identical lines. Although it is not really relevant to the Clause, perhaps I should say that in certain things in connection with the raising of capital and the presentation of accounts there are slight differences, because the Crown is owner of the nationalised ports, but with respect to charges it is our belief that the docks board group of ports and the remaining ports of the country are on all fours.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 46, at end insert:
(5) In section 23 of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act 1937 the words 'Part III of' shall be omitted.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Although this is really a drafting Amendment it perhaps requires a moment's explanation. It ensures that there is no overlap between the provisions relating to piers and ferries in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1908,


and the new provisions, for charges at piers and ferries in Clauses 25 to 37 of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "D".—(HARBOUR SERVICES AND FACILITIES PROVIDED BY CERTAIN HARBOUR AUTHORITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 46, after the words last inserted insert new Clause "D":
D.—(1) A harbour authority shall have power to make the use of services and facilities provided by them at a harbour which, in the exercise and performance of stautory powers and duties, they are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit except with respect to charges as to which their discretion is limited by a statutory provision (whether by specifying, or providing for specifying, charges to be made, or fixing or providing for fixing charges, or otherwise).
(2) In this section 'harbour authority' has the same meaning as in section 25 of this Act.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, again, is an Amendment consequential on the decision to restore the "reasonable" requirement. The new Clause inserted deals with the terms and conditions of the use of harbour services and facilities previously dealt with in Clause 25 after amendment. As previously drafted, Clause 25 provided, amongst other things, that a harbour authority to which the Clause related might make the use of its services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as it thought fit. As altered by Amendments Nos. 36 to 46, Clause 25 deals only with the levying of ship, passenger and goods dues by such harbour authorities.
Provisions relating to terms and conditions have been moved in this new Clause, which provides that the authority may make the use of its services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. Since it might be argued that a charge is a "term and condition", the Clause provides that where a charge has some limitation—for example, a requirement that it shall be reasonable—the power to impose such terms and conditions as it thinks fit will not allow a harbour authority to override such a limitation.
I think that that will go some way to reassure the anxiety of the hon. and

learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) that we have not gone far enough in our undertaking to see that "reasonableness" came back into the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43.—(PENALISATION OF FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 25, after "section" insert "4 or".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I am very grateful to learn from a murmured interruption that the Opposition will agree to this Amendment, as it deals with one of these unpopular penal items. All it does is to apply the same penalties for giving false information in respect of the new information provided for in Clause 4 as already exist in the Bill for all other kinds of information.

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 40, after "section" insert "4 or".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, also, is consequential. It includes the information now allowed for under Clause 4 in the list concerning restrictions on the disclosure of information. This list has now to be expanded so as to include a reference to the information which may be required under Clause 4.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 52.—(ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 44, at end insert:
(Compensation for loss of office, &amp;c. in consequence of orders and schemes)".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment provides that regulations made by my right hon. Friend under subsection (1) of the new Clause dealing with compensation shall be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 55.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: in page 62 line 29 at end insert:
(4) Any reference in this Act (elsewhere than in the foregoing provisions of this section or in section 38) to ship, passenger and goods dues shall be construed as including a reference to charges payable by persons using a ferry which is a marine work.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a new Amendment which clarifies a minor aspect of the provisions of the Bill relating to charges. It ensures that the provisions relating to dues fixed by a harbour authority as set out in the Bill apply also to charges for passengers crossing on a ferry which is a marine work in Scotland. The Clauses of the Bill dealing with charges and dues will thus apply to these fares in just the same way as they apply to ship, passenger and goods dues, which means that they will be free from control but will be subject to procedure for objections to be lodged against them under Clause 29.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman can say with truth that this Amendment refers only to ferries in Scotland, these charges are extremely important. I can assure him of that. Those who have to use them take very strong objection to some of the charges which are imposed. I want an assurance from the Minister that no power will be taken away from the individual user to voice his or her complaint if these charges are so revised as to be regarded by users as intolerable. I want an assurance that users will lose none of the protection which they have to safeguard their individual rights against charges which they regard as exorbitant.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think that I can give that assurance. I fully realise the importance of this matter. The hon. Gentleman may recall that, when we were suddenly faced with these Amendments in Committee, I refused to move them because I felt that the Committee and the House would require more notice. They were moved on Report by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Scotland and were accepted by the House. I think that I am right in saying, however, that in their

original form these Amendments would have allowed very little latitude for objections to be made to the charges because such charges would not come under the heading of ship dues, but would have come under the heading of charges for services and, presumably, would have been subject only to the requirement that they had to be reasonable.
By this Amendment, we are putting these charges in the category of ship dues. Therefore, the whole procedure under which an appeal can be made to the Secretary of State for Scotland under Clause 29 applies. Moreover, because they are now treated as ship, passenger and goods dues, it will be open to the appropriate Minister, as I understand it, to order a new scale of charges, if necessary, under Clause 30 of the Bill, I think it was, when it left the Hause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61.—(SHORT TITLE, EXTENT, REPEAL AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 64, line 16, after "38" insert:
(Certain charges of certain harbour authorities to be reasonable) and (Harbour services and facilities provided by certain harbour authorities).

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a consequential Amendment arising from the new Clauses. It secures that they are brought into operation at the same time as the other Clauses relating to charges.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2.—(OBJECTS FOR WHOSE ACHIEVEMENT HARBOUR REVISION ORDERS MAY BE MADE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 3, after "them" insert:
for the purpose of its being used".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment which is intended simply to widen the wording of paragraph 7 of the Schedule so that it clearly covers not only the acquisition of land as a site for works, but also the acquisition of land for other purposes.


It is necessary because a harbour authority may wish to acquire land for some purpose such as depositing spoil which would not in itself involve the carrying out of harbour works.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 18, at end insert:
10A. Empowering the authority to levy at the harbour charges other than ship, passenger and goods dues or varying or abolishing charges (other than as aforesaid) levied by them at the harbour".

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, also, is consequential upon the Amendments to restore the "reasonable" requirement. It adds certain charging powers to the list in Schedule 2 to which I referred earlier and is really consequential upon the redrafting of Clause 25.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Consideration of the Lords Amendment in the Title, line 4, postponed until after the consideration of subsequent Amendments.—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]

Clause 1.—(ASSIMILATION OF HERITAGE TO MOVEABLES FOR PURPOSE OF DEVOLUTION ON INTESTACY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 9, leave out from "affect" to "and" in line 13 and insert:
legal rights or the prior rights of a surviving spouse".

7.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments numbered 7, 9, 15, 23, 26, 27, 28, 32, 35, and 1, which has just been postponed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): They will have to be put separately as they are reached, but if it is agreeable to the House they can be discussed together now.

Lady Tweedsmuir: When we were discussing this in Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), during the debate on 16th January, said that he thought it unfortunate that the term "legal rights" had been applied in the Bill to those rights of the surviving spouse which arise only on intestacy. The hon. Gentleman suggested that this might lead to confusion, because "legal rights" is an expression which by long usage has been applied to claims which can be made on the estate of a deceased person, whether or not there is a will. At the time I expressed sympathy with the point which had been made but said that I believed that the drafting of Clauses 8 and 9 was clear enough on this point to avoid the confusion the hon. Gentleman suggested.
However, when the Bill was in another place attention was again drawn to the point. We also had observations on the matter from various legal societies. They were anxious to keep the traditional meaning of "legal rights". We therefore gave further thought to the possibility of devising a new term which could be used to describe the rights which arise only on intestacy under Clauses 8 and 9, keeping the term "legal rights" to be used, as hitherto, for claims arising whether or not there is a will. The result of all this was the series of Amendments I now present.
The key Amendment in the series is perhaps No. 28 which applies a new term—"prior rights"—to the rights conferred on a surviving spouse by Clauses 8 and 9. These, as the House will recall, are the surviving spouse's rights to the house and to the furniture and plenishings under Clause 8 and to the sum of £2,500 or £5,000, as the case may be, under Clause 9.
I stress that this series of Amendments involves a change in name only. The Amendments, will make no difference whatsoever to the distribution of any estate which has to be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill. I should have liked to say to the hon. Member


for Craigton, if only he were here, that I rather wish I had accepted his suggestion in Committee.

Mr. George Lawson: What the noble Lady has said bears out what most of my hon. Friends and I thought about the manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) delved into the Bill and the attention he gave to it. Much of his advice was accepted. My hon. Friends had the feeling that the noble Lady would have been well advised to have accepted all his advice. My hon. Friend welcomes the fact that the noble Lady has at this late hour accepted the advice he gave in this respect. My hon. Friend is unable to be here this evening. He has asked me to thank the noble Lady on his behalf for having accepted his suggestion and to say that he welcomes these changes and improvements.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I did not have the good fortune to be a member of the Standing Committee when this matter was considered. Perhaps the Standing Committee ought to be considered fortunate rather than myself. I do not know that I would have accepted this argument. I am still left wondering why a prior right which is specified in Clauses 8 and 9 is not a legal right. Of course it is a legal right. I am left wondering what a prior right is. If a prior right is different from a legal right, the noble Lady has not made clear to me what the difference is.
I came into the Chamber especially to hear what the difference would be. I have been told it is a right of the spouse under Clauses 8 and 9. If the Bill is enacted, it will be a legal right that the spouse has. I am puzzled as to why something in an Act of Parliament is not a legal right. I did not have the benefit of hearing the obviously learned discussion on this matter in Committee. As a simple layman, one who is not likely to be faced with an estate of £20,000 to £25,000 to dispose of but as one interested in this matter and as one who may be called upon to give some advice in these matters, I should like to know what the difference is. Why is something which is in an Act of Parliament not a legal right?

Lady Tweedsmuir: It is very good to see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) back with us again. He asked me to define the difference between "prior rights" and "legal rights". Legal rights arise whether or not there is a will. The prior rights under Clauses 8 and 9 arise only in cases of intestacy.

Mr. Willis: The noble Lady has not answered my question. Why is something which is in an Act of Parliament not a legal right?

Lady Tweedsmuir: The point was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), that the term "legal rights" as used in Scotland has become very well known and understood over a great number of years. They can be claimed whether or not a will has been made. We are introducing in the Bill new rights. We therefore thought that it was right, as these apply only on intestacy, to make it absolutely clear. We therefore use the term "prior rights", which I suggest to the House may very well in time be used with as much familiarity as "legal rights" is today.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause A.—(LEGAL RIGHTS OF SURVIVING SPOUSE, ON INTESTACY, IN DWELLING HOUSE AND FURNITURE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 3, leave out Clause 8 and insert new Clause "A":
(1) Where a person dies intestate leaving a spouse, and the intestate estate includes a relevant interest in a dwelling house to which this section applies, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to receive out of the intestate estate—

(a) where the value of the relevant interest does not exceed £15,000—

(i) if subsection (2) of this section does not apply, the relevant interest;
(ii) if the said subsection (2) applies, a sum equal to the value of the relevant interest;

(b) in any other case, the sum of £15,000:

Provided that, if the intestate estate comprises a relevant interest in two or more dwelling houses to which this section applies, this subsection shall have effect only in relation to such one of them as the surviving spouse may elect for the purposes of this subsection within six months of the date of death of the intestate.


(2) This subsection shall apply for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection if—

(a) the dwelling house forms part only of the subjects comprised in one tenancy or lease under which the intestate was the tenant; or
(b) the dwelling house forms the whole or part of subjects an interest in which is comprised in the intestate estate and which were used by the intestate for carrying on a trade, profession or occupation, and the value of the estate as a whole would be likely to be substantially diminished if the dwelling house were disposed of otherwise than with the assets of the trade, profession or occupation.

(3) Where a person dies intestate leaving a spouse, and the intestate estate includes the furniture and plenishings of a dwelling house to which this section applies (whether or not the dwelling house is comprised in the intestate estate), the surviving spouse shall be entitled to receive out of the intestate estate—

(a) where the value of the furniture and plenishings does not exceed £5,000, the whole thereof:
(b) in any other case, such part of the furniture and plenishings, to a value not exceeding £5,000, as may be chosen by the surviving spouse:

Provided that, if the intestate estate comprises the furniture and plenishings of two or more such dwelling houses, this subsection shall have effect only in relation to the furniture and plenishings of such one of them as the surviving spouse may elect for the purposes of this subsection within six months of the date of death of the intestate.
(4) This section applies, in the case of any intestate, to any dwelling house in which the surviving spouse of the intestate was ordinarily resident at the date of death of the intestate.
(5) Where any question arises as to the value of any furniture or plenishings, or of any interest in a dwelling house, for the purposes of any provision of this section the question shall be determined by arbitration by a single arbiter appointed, in default of agreement, by the sheriff of the county in which the intestate was domiciled at the date of his death or, if that county is uncertain or the intestate was domiciled furth of Scotland, the sheriff of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh.
(6) In this section—

(a) 'dwelling house' includes a part of a building occupied (at the date of death of the intestate) as a separate dwelling; and any reference to a dwelling house shall be construed as including any garden or portion of ground attached to, and usually occupied with, the dwelling house or otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of the dwelling house;
(b) 'furniture and plenishings' includes garden effects, domestic animals, plate, plated articles, linen, china, glass, books, pictures, prints, articles of household use and consumable stores; but does not in-

clude any article or animal used at the date of death of the intestate for business purposes, or money or securities for money or any heirloom;
(c) 'heirloom', in relation to an intestate estate, means any article which has associations with the intestate's family of such nature and extent that it ought to pass to some member of that family other than the surviving spouse of the intestate;
(d) 'relevant interest', in relation to a dwelling house, means the interest therein of an owner, or the interest therein of a tenant, subject in either case to any heritable debt secured over the interest; and for the purposes of this definition 'tenant' means a tenant under a tenancy or lease (whether of the dwelling house alone or of the dwelling house together with other subjects) which is not a tenancy to which the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts 1920 to 1939 apply."

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 7, line 25, which is consequential.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is agreeable to the House.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The Amendment rewrites Clause 8, which has been regarded, with justice, as one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. I therefore hope that, even at this hour, the House will bear with me if I take a little time to explain this provision.
Hon. Members will probably recall that in Committee there was criticism of subsection (4,c), which empowered the Court of Session or the sheriff to order that the surviving spouse of an intestate should have the value of the dwelling-house instead of the house itself in cases where the Court was satisfied that there were special circumstances of an historical nature connected with the house.
8.0 p.m.
I recognised the force of this criticism and when the Bill was before the House on Report there stood in my right hon. Friend's name an Amendment which would have omitted this provision and would have introduced a money limit of £10,000, the idea being that if the house was worth more than £10,000 the surviving spouse should receive that sum instead of the house itself. The principle of the Amendment was acceptable, but


hon. Members opposite were not satisfield with the sum of £10,000. They did not think that it was high enough. Their arguments convinced me and I withdrew the Amendment and said that I should like to think about it again.
Nothing further could be done while the Bill was in this House, but in another place the Clause was amended in the sense that I had proposed but with the substitution of £15,000 for £10,000. Therefore, the effect of the Amendment now is that if the value of the house does not exceed £15,000 the surviving spouse may take the house, or if it is a farmhouse or part of business premises he or she may take its value, but if the value of the house exceeds £15,000 the surviving spouse is entitled only to a sum of money limited to £15,000 and not to the house itself.
The second point of difference in the new Clause is that in another place fears were expressed that Clauses 8 and 9, together with jus relicti would operate to give a surviving spouse too large a share of an intestate estate. My noble Friend who was in charge of the Bill in another place felt able to meet the criticism only to the extent of amending the Clause to provide that the house would not pass to the surviving spouse free of Estate Duty. The effect is that in estates up to £5,000 the Amendment makes no difference, since no duty is chargeable at that level. In an estate of £6,000, where the house is worth £3,000, the difference to the widow might be £20. In an estate of £10,000 where the house if worth £4,000 the difference might be about £100.
The third point is the exclusion of heirlooms from furniture and plenishings which go to the surviving spouse. It is very difficult to define an heirloom, especially as it may be an article of very little intrinsic value but may be something which has close association with a family or a family name. It is reasonable that such an article should not necessarily go to the surviving spouse as of right but that it should be left to the family to arrange among themselves who among them is the most rightful recipient of it.
Finally, there has been some rearrangement of the material of the Clause but the three points which I have mentioned

are the only points of substance in which the new Clause differs from the old. The Lords Amendment in Clause 9, page 7, line 25 is a drafting Amendment which is consequential on the rearrangement of Clause 8.

Mr. Lawson: The Amendment is virtually a complete redrafting of Clause 8 as it stood in the Bill when it was sent to another place. It can be said again that the redrafting is largely as a result of advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) who certainly found much in that Clause which was less clear than it might have been. In the sense that the noble Lady has accepted my hon. Friend's advice, I should like to thank her once again on his behalf.
The acceptance of the £15,000 limit in place of the £10,000 is acceptance of the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who felt that the £10,000 had been brought in without much obvious sign of previous consultation, and showed failure to take account of existing values and of the possible quick rise in values due to the great increase in the value of private houses. My hon. Friend's advice was that the figure was too low. The noble Lady agreed to reconsider the matter and has now met the point by accepting a figure of £15,000.
The concern shown in another place that the widow or surviving spouse should not be left too much out of the estate shows a meanness which is a wee bit distressing to me. We had accepted previously that part of the estate which went to the surviving spouse would not be subject to Estate Duty. We understood that the duty would be taken off in the first place and that it would be out of the balance that the share going to the widow would be determined. The step which has now been taken puzzled us. We saw that subsection (6) of the original Clause had disappeared without any indication of the reason. The noble Lady has now given us the explanation, and I dislike it.
The question of heirlooms puzzles me and has certainly puzzled my hon. Friends. I have looked into the question of what an heirloom means in Scottish law. I do not pretend to be a lawyer or to be expert in these matters, but I


cannot find an heirloom denned in Scottish law.
The Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland refers to an heirloom as in English law and says that
Heirlooms, in the law of England, are such personal chattels as pass on their owner's death, by force of a special custom, to his heir, along with his inheritance, and not to his executor or administrator. Such are the best bed, table, pot, pan, cart, etc.
The Encyclopaedia enlarges on this. It makes the point that there is something very personal in heirlooms in the old-established sense but says that
In popular language, the term heirloom is generally applied to plate, pictures, furniture, or other articles of property which, in England, have been assigned by deed of settlement, or bequeathed by will to trustees, in trust to permit the same to be used and enjoyed by the persons for the time being in possession, under the settlement or will, of the mansion-house in which the articles may be placed.
This is the popular use of the term "heirloom", but Section 1370 of the Encyclopaedia says that
An endeavour made to introduce into Scots law heirlooms in the popular sense has been unsuccessful.
It goes on to make various references.
My studies have not been extensive or long, but as far as they have gone I cannot find anything beyond what I have quoted on the subject of heirlooms in Scotland. I wonder whether the noble Lady is injecting into Scots law, in a slight and ill-considered way, a term which does not exist in Scots law and is inserting it neither in the old-established sense in which it appears in English law nor in the popular sense. If it is inserted in the popular sense I notice that in subsection (3,b) of the new Clause pictures are included in the furniture which may be passed over to the spouse.

Mr. John Brewis: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me? I think that I am right in saying that the Inland Revenue has to certify what is an heirloom. If the Inland Revenue certifies a table, for instance, as an heirloom, it is free of death duty. It would, therefore, appear that there is a judge of what constitutes an heirloom. I wonder whether the hon. Member has any information on this point?

Mr. Lawson: I began by saying that my studies have not been extensive. I

had expected that either my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) or my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) would be handling this business this afternoon, but they are both very much engaged elsewhere, so it has been left to me. Therefore, my studies were hurried.
However, I turned to what would seem to be an authority on this matter. We are here making Scottish law and are inserting the word "heirloom" without definition, which would seem to me to be likely to provoke a tremendous amount of trouble in future. Let me read paragraph (c):
'heirloom', in relation to an intestate estate, means any article which has associations with the intestate's family of such nature and extent that it ought to pass to some member of that family other than the surviving spouse of the intestate".
The words are "such nature and extent …". Take, for example, an old pot or the best bed. Such an article is described here as "such nature and extent". What does "extent" mean in this connection? It might be an old relic, a possession that has been handed down from father to son over a number of generations. That is the usual description—something handed down from father to son, something that is treasured because of its personal associations, something virtually of no value other than a sentimental value—and I am using the word "sentimental" in no derogatory sense. How does this term "extent" come in? The word "extent" indicates to me that it might be of considerable value.
Then there is the statement
that it ought it to pass to some member of that family …
What is meant by "ought to pass"? I can understand what constitutes an heirloom in the old sense in which the English law has it, but we do not seem to have this term in our law. Therefore, we have here something which, it seems to me, has been introduced in a very slipshod way. We are introducing a change in Scottish law, which, apparently, has been rejected in the past by our courts. It seems to me that this was introduced for sentimental reasons.
Perhaps someone in another place—I have not had time to read all that has been said in another place—had


ancient memories of some article. I do not think that this is good enough. I expect the noble Lady to give us a much better description than she has done so far.
From Clause 9 it is proposed to delete the words:
property which the surviving spouse would have been entitled to receive under the last foregoing section if the property had been included in the intestate estate and if subsection (4) of that section had not passed
and to insert:
dwelling house to which the last foregoing section applies or of any furniture and plenishings of any such dwelling house".
As I understand the position in Clause 8, it is the surviving spouse who obtained the house up to the value of £15,000, or else £15,000 if the house was of such a nature that it was deemed that it should remain in the family. But, as well as this, she could obtain the furniture and plenishings up to a value of £5,000, always on the understanding that the furniture and plenishings were taken out of one house if they were in more than one house. The surviving spouse would have a choice as to which house she would take.
8.15 p.m.
As I understood it, even if there was a dwelling which did not come under the estate, but was a dwelling provided with furniture and plenishings, the surviving spouse would not inherit the dwelling but out of the dwelling she could obtain furniture and plenishings up to a value of £5,000. I want to know whether Clause 9 excludes the right of the surviving spouse to obtain the furniture and plenishings out of a dwelling which is not part of the estate.
It is proposed to substitute the words:
dwelling house to which the last foregoing section applies or of any furniture and plenishings of any such dwelling house".
That seems to me to suggest that we are talking of a dwelling house to which the surviving spouse is heir. What we have dealt with earlier also provides that there could be furniture and plenishings in a house which was not part of the estate. Is it the case that this additional part of the prior claim of the surviving spouse is to be taken away?

Mr. Willis: I wish to say a few words about the term "heirloom". I asked

where it was to be found, because I had not noticed that it was in the main body of the Clause. It only becomes necessary to define it because it arises in the definition provision. We define "furniture and plenishings" in paragraph (b) and then we have to define the words in the definition. I mention this because this is rather unusual.
When I tried to find the meaning of the word "heirloom", like my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) I was bewildered by the definition. I thought that it was very wide and I tried to conjure up some of the things that the words in the definition could mean. The words are:
means any article which has associations with the intestate's family of such nature and extent that it ought to pass to some member of that family other than the surviving spouse of the intestate".
In the first place, I do not see why it should not refer to a spouse. She might pass the article on to her children. However, that is by the way. What is meant by the words "such nature and extent"? What kind of nature is intended? What is the extent? How long has it got to be in the family? My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell suggested that in certain cases "heirloom" had been taken to mean plate. But a number of things are included in the definition of furniture and plenishings which I would have thought might have been heirlooms.
I give the examples of plate, plated articles, china, glass, books, pictures and prints. When do they cease to be furniture and plenishings and when do they become heirlooms? If I bought a book and I died next week, it would not be an heirloom, but if a book had been in my family for 400 or 500 years, probably it would be an heirloom. The same comment applies to plate. When does a picture become an heirloom? Possibly a picture of my father is not an heirloom, but a picture of my great, great grandfather is an heirloom. What is the test?
The words used in the definition of an heirloom are such that they seem likely to lead to a fair amount of disputation. Not, I suppose, that the lawyers will object—and that is why they will approve of these words. Anything which confuses the person who is leaving something will meet with their


approval. No doubt the lawyers will be delighted with this definition, because it will lead to some legal disputation. It is possible that if the wife were likely to sell the books or the pictures or the prints, it might lead to disputation between her and the family as to what these words mean.
The hon. Lady did not explain this very carefully. If these words had been taken to the Scottish Grand Committee the subsection would have been good for a three-morning debate and a large volume of Amendments. My hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) would have had a field day, and no doubt they would have cast a lot of light on the subject and we should have had the benefit of their knowledge in deciding what these words mean.

Mr. William Hannan: My hon. Friend is far too modest in the matter.

Mr. Willis: I am a legal student, always seeking to extend my knowledge in these matters. That is why I listen to my hon. Friends and why I ask the Minister what the words mean. The Minister did not answer my previous question, and I do not suppose that I shall get a much better answer on this occasion. But will she define when these things which are not furniture and plenishings become heirlooms?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Two main questions have been raised, one by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and one by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I do not know why they are so modest about their achievements in the realm of the law, because I suspect that while their hon. Friends are very busy they are doing very well in their absence.
The hon. Member for Motherwell asked me whether it was possible for the surviving spouse to take furnishings and plenishings when there was not a house available. If he looks at subsection (3) he will find the words:
Where a person dies intestate leaving a spouse, and the intestate estate includes the furniture and plenishings of a dwelling house to which this Section applies"—
and the next words, in brackets, are very important—

(whether or not the dwelling house is comprised in the intestate estate), the surviving spouse shall be entitled to receive …
There is the example of someone in a local authority house, with no house to leave. She would be entitled to make a claim for the furniture and plenishings. Under subsection (4) the spouse may take the furniture of the house, whether or not it is part of the accepted estate, provided that she was ordinarily resident in it.
Both the hon. Member for Motherwell and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked about the definition of heirloom. I agree that it is a very difficult question. It is not intended to attract any English definition of heirloom, and the term "heirloom", as the hon. Member for Motherwell rightly said, has no place in Scots law. But as he also rightly said, we are here to make law, and the term "heirloom" is therefore defined in subsection (6,c). It is deliberately defined in very general terms which will leave very wide discretion to the executor and members of the family to decide which should go to the spouse. If hon. Members look at subsection (5) they will see that it says:
Where any question arises as to the value of any furniture or plenishings, or of any interest in a dwelling house, for the purposes of any provision of this section the question shall be determined by arbitration by a single arbiter
appointed in default of agreement. That covers the question under subsection (6,b) to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred. "Furniture and plenishings" are particularly defined in it, including "garden effects, domestic animals, etc.". The hon. Member rightly asked when a piece of plate or a picture becomes an heirloom. This is why in subsection (6,b) we have listed rather carefully the furniture and plenishings which the surviving spouse could normally claim. Where there is a dispute there could be a reference to a single arbiter.
Subsection (5) does not apply to subsection (6,c) in connection with an heirloom. An heirloom is not necessarily of intrinsic: value. For instance, the hon. Member mentioned a book which may have been in the possession of the family for some time; it is not necessarily valuable but it is one to which he and the family attach particular interest. Or


there might be a picture of his great great grandfather which presumably the latter would prefer to go to his great great grandson rather than to the surviving spouse, who perhaps came from another family. We have drafted this in very wide terms believing that the majority of Scots families on these rare occasions come to some agreement among themselves. Where there is no agreement then, as at present, there is always recourse to the courts.

Mr. Willis: Does subsection (6) secrete a legal right or a prior right?

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member will have observed that this comes under Clause 8, and therefore it is a prior right.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(LEGITIM NOT TO BE DISCHARGED BY ANTE-NUPTIAL MARRIAGE CONTRACT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 24, leave out from "marriage" to end of line 27 and insert "executed after".

8.30 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment removes an element of retrospection from the provisions of Clause 12. Clause 12 provides that nothing in an ante-nuptial contract shall operate so as to exclude on the death of either party to the contract the right of any child of the marriage to claim legitim from the estate of that party unless he elects to accept the provisions made in his favour under the contract in lieu of his legitim.
As the Bill left the House, Clause 12 applied not only to contracts made after the Bill became law but also to contracts made before the Bill became law, provided that they did not take effect by the death of one of the parties until a year thereafter. The intention was that provisions intending to exclude claims for legitim and ante-nuptial contracts made before the Bill became law should remain enforceable for a year, during which period the parties might be expected to revise their financial

arrangements to take account of the fact that after the year had expired these provisions would no longer exclude claims to legitim. The application of the Clause to contracts before the Bill becomes law was criticised in another place by a number of speakers, including two Lords of Appeal.
The case against the retrospective application of the Clause is, first, that it is wrong to interfere with contracts validly made under the present law, and, secondly, that the one-year period of grace allowed by the Clause might be illusory in that the parties might not be able to make alternative financial arrangements. These arguments were accepted by my noble Friend, and the Amendment has the effect of applying Clause 12 only to ante-nuptial contracts of marriage made after the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Lawson: This is a change which we do not like. It extends the transition period. I am surprised that the Undersecretary of State has shown that she is prepared to accept this proposal, because in Committee upstairs she brought forward evidence illustrating how detrimental to the interests of the child some of these agreements could be in many cases. She quoted the Mackintosh Committee's recommendation that the type of practice which had been engaged in under Scottish law should be eliminated.
We thought that, as the noble Lady agreed with the arguments which were advanced, there would be no worsening of the position. This is a very retrograde step and shows the nature of another place in matters of this kind. There is very little that we can do about it at this stage, but I protest that we have worsened the position in this important matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13.—(EQUITABLE COMPENSATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 35, leave out from "disposition" to "the" in line 36 and insert "executed after".

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment, like the previous one, is to remove an element of retrospection in the application


of Clause 13. As it left this House, Clause 13 would have applied to testamentary dispositions made before the Bill became an Act by taking effect on the death of the testator or, perhaps, on someone else's death after one year from the date of the commencement of the Act.
Parliament is always reluctant, I think, to accept proposals for retrospective legislation, and I am sure that the House will agree that the Government were right to amend this Clause so that it would apply only to wills made after the Bill became law.

Mr. Lawson: This Amendment is of the same character as the last one. We have the same feeling about it as we had about the previous Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15.—(PROVISIONS AS TO TRANSFER OF HERITAGE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 4, after "confirmation" insert:
(or where a certificate of confirmation relating to the property has been issued in pursuance of any act of sederunt, on the certificate)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it might be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the three consequential Amendments, Nos. 33, 34 and 36, to Schedule 1.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The purpose of this group of Amendments is to ensure that the docket in Schedule 1 which may be endorsed upon a confirmation under Clause 15 to transfer heritable property to a person entitled to it may be endorsed also upon a certificate of confirmation. A confirmation normally includes a list of all the items in the deceased's estate to which the executor has been confirmed, but the Court of Session has provided by act of sederunt that on request a sheriff clerk may issue a certificate of confirmation in respect of one item and that this certificate is as effectual for that item as the full confirmation itself.
Clause 15 provides that an executor may transfer heritable property to a person entitled to it by executing on the confirmation a short conveyance in the form of the docket prescribed by Schedule 1. It will clearly be convenient if this docket can be endorsed on a certificate of confirmation covering a single item of heritable property in the same way as it can be endorsed upon the confirmation itself. The Amendment ensures that it can be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 19.—(ESTATE DUTY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 11, leave out "in respect of heritable property".

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we could discuss with this Amendment the next two Amendments, Nos. 12 and 13.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House.

Lady Tweedsmuir: As Clause 19 left this House, it provided that an executor would be accountable for Estate Duty on heritable property which had never passed through his hands because it had gone direct from the deceased to its new owner under a special destination. This was not intended. This Amendment and Amendment No. 12 ensure that the executor is accountable only for duty on property which has passed through his hands. Lords Amendment No. 13 is consequential upon the other two Amendments. Subsection (8) of the Clause is no longer needed and Amendment No. 13 omits it.

Mr. Lawson: As the noble Lady will agree, this was another point which was brought to her notice by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). They are happy to see this tighter and more accurate definition and they welcome the change.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 23.—(ADOPTED PERSON TO BE TREATED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCCESSION ETC. AS CHILD OF ADOPTER.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 18, leave out "the" and insert:
and in the following provisions of this Part of this Act any".

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment to ensure that any reference to succession to a deceased person throughout Part IV of the Bill will be construed as stated in subsection (1) of Clause 23.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26.—(ORDERS FOR FINANCIAL PROVISION ON DIVORCE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 22, leave out from "or" to end of line 24 and insert "a periodical allowance or both".

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment and if convenient to the House, I suggest that we discuss with it the following four Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Clause 26 refers at several points to
a capital sum or an annual or periodical allowance or of both such sum and such allowance.
This is clumsy, because an annual allowance is necessarily a periodical allowance, and there is no need to employ both terms. This Lords Amendment alters the reference to
a capital sum or a periodical allowance or both.
The four subsequent Lords Amendments make corresponding adjustments and they are all drafting.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 27.—(ORDERS RELATING TO SETTLEMENTS AND OTHER DEALINGS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 35, leave out from "the" to end of line 38 and insert:
defender from making any such settlement or disposition, or transferring out of the jurisdiction of the court, or otherwise dealing with, any property belonging to the defender".

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment intended to improve the wording of the Clause. As it stands the Clause refers to the Court's interdicting the making of a settlement. This is an unusual use of "interdicting" since the Court interdicts a person rather than an action. The Amendment puts this right, without making any change in the substance of the provision, the purpose of which is to prevent a defender in a divorce action from disposing of his property or transferring it out of the Court's jurisdiction so as to defeat an award by the Court to the pursuer under Clause 26.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B.—(EFFECT OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS ON SPECIAL DESTINATIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 20, at end insert new Clause B:
A testamentary disposition executed after the commencement of this Act shall not have effect as to evacuate a special destination being a destination which could competently be evacuated by the testamentary disposition) unless it contains a specific reference to the destination and a declared intention on the part of the testator to evacuate it.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this new Clause is to ensure that a testator does not evacuate a special destination by oversight or inadvertence, and to avoid any doubts as to his intentions in this regard. It is possible for a person—and I think that if I call him A it is the simplest way—to make a will leaving his property to B and on B's death to a third person whom I will call C. Such a provision in A's will constitutes a special destination in favour of C. Depending on how the special destination is expressed it may be possible for B, who takes the property on A's death,


to prevent it from going to C by making a will in favour of yet another person whom I will call D. If B's will simply says, "I leave all my property to D", it may be an arguable question whether he intended to dispose of the property covered by the special destination in this way, or whether he really intended it to go to C, as provided by the special destination, or whether he had simply forgotten about the special destination governing this property. Therefore, the effect of the new Clause removes any uncertainty of this kind. It ensures that B's will does not evacuate the special destination unless his intention to do so is clearly expressed. I should like to stress that this Clause does not place any restriction at all on B's freedom to leave the property where he pleases. It merely provides that the special destination in favour of C is not to be evacuated unless B makes it perfectly clear that that was his intention.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I cannot say that I followed exactly what the noble Lady has said. My understanding of the Amendment is that it relates to a discussion that we had in Committee about what would happen to a tenancy where the tenant had part of the tenancy still to go and there was an expressed or implied understanding that it would go to someone else. We learned that because of the provisions which are being made in the Bill, this need not work out, and very many complications were arising in relation to what would happen to the remaining part of the tenancy in a deceased person's estate. I understand that this was what the Amendment was to deal with.
I am not quite sure that the matter has been cleared up for me. I wonder whether the noble Lady could take it a little further and perhaps describe it—I know that she has tried to use simple language—in language a little simpler than she has so far been able to use.

Lady Tweedsmuir: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I should like to make it clear that new Clause B is not related to Clause 29, which precedes it and which is concerned with the right of a tenant to bequeath an interest under a lease. This is a separate Clause. In the consideration of Lords Amendments we have to place a new Clause

where we wish it to be placed in the Bill.
I think that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) was referring to a question which we discussed at some length about whether the Bill abolishes the heir at law; but that is not the question under discussion now. What we are discussing is the situation where a person leaves a will and says that he leaves his property to his son, Arthur, and failing him, to his granddaughter, Jean. I made up a family in this connection; they had the most marvellous names, and the most terrible things happened to them, but I do not think I will weary the House with that at this stage.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis rose—

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Gentleman cannot interrupt me at this stage. I am very busy thinking about what happened when the property was left to the granddaughter, Jean.
The fact remains that had the son decided to make a will and leave the property which had been left to him by a special destination away to somebody quite different, perhaps to his brother, then the question arises whether the destination was competently evacuated or not. The purpose of the new Clause is to make perfectly clear that this cannot be so unless it is clearly expressed that the person in question has the intention to evacuate the destination.

Mr. Willis: Before the noble Lady finishes answering my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), I assume that the new Clause covers an interest in a lease, which is what my hon. Friend was really asking about.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I was pointing out that the right of a tenant to bequeath an interest in a lease under Clause 29 was a completely different provision from this.

Mr. Willis: We know that.

Lady Tweedsmuir: This would apply under certain circumstances. However, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well about the myriad different interests in a lease, and it might not be within the competence of anyone to leave a lease by a special destination.

Mr. Lawson: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I should like to take this a little further in an attempt to understand it. Let us assume that there are a grandfather, his son and a granddaughter, and that the grandfather makes out his will leaving his estate to his son but with the proviso written into the will that, should anything happen to his son, the estate will go to the granddaughter.
Let us assume that the grandfather dies and that his son inherits the estate. Am I to understand that, in consequence of the change being made here, the son is given the right to dispossess his own daughter by leaving the estate to his brother or some other person?
To put it another way, am I to understand that the second person in the line of succession is given the right to will the estate to whomsoever he pleases? Is that the position? Or is the reverse the position, that the second individual is not permitted to cut the third person—his own daughter in this case—out of the estate? I am not sure which is the position.

Mr. Willis: As I understand this new Clause, it concerns anything which a person has a right to bequeath. If it does, surely it includes the right to an interest under a lease. The simple question that I ask is: does it or does it not? In as much as it seems to me to cover anything, then it would obviously cover the right to bequeath an interest in the lease. The hon. Lady can surely answer that "Yes" or "No," without clouding it in a mass of legal verbiage which does not mean very much to the House, and it is doubtful whether it means much to the hon. Lady either.

Lady Tweedsmuir: That may be perfectly true. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) asked me whether this new Clause meant that the son, for instance, of the testator had no further right to leave his property away. It does not in any way take away from his right. A special destination means that the father, for example, would leave his property to his son and failing him to his grandson, and, therefore, if it has gone to his son, it does not take away the right of the son to leave the property as he wishes. In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), it, of course, covers the right to

leave a lease, which I think was the simple question he asked.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30.—(PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS TO PROPERTY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 29, at end insert:
unless the next following subsection applies".

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that it would be convenient for the House, as this Amenmdent paves the way for the next Amendment in page 20, line 29, if the two could be discussed together.
When two persons, not being husband and wife, died together paragraph (b) of Clause 30, as that Clause stood when it left this House, raised the presumption that the younger person survived the elder. We took as an example in Committee the question of an aircraft crash. When the Clause was debated in another place, it was pointed out that this presumption might lead to property falling into intestacy notwithstanding the existence of a will under which, but for the presumption of survivorship, some other person would have been able to claim it.
This might happen if the elder of the two persons who died together had left the property by will to the younger, whom failing, to some other person. Under paragraph (b) the younger person is presumed to have survived the elder and property is therefore deemed to have passed to the younger person, if only for a moment of time. If the younger person has left a will there is no difficulty: the property devolves in accordance with the provisions of this will. If, however, the younger person has died intestate, as he might very well do if he is a child, the property is included in his intestate estate, notwithstanding the expressed wish of its previous owner that failing the younger person it should go to a nominated third person.
The effect of the Amendment is that in a case in which two persons have died together, and the elder has left a will containing a provision in favour of the


younger, whom failing a third person, and the younger person dies intestate, then the elder person shall for the purpose of that provision be presumed to have survived the younger. The result will be that property covered by the provision in question will go under the elder person's will to the nominated third person instead of forming part of the intestate estate of the younger person.

Mr. Lawson: This was also discussed upstairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was very uncertain about the wording as it stood. He agreed that it was undesirable that we should leave the position as it had been, with all the great uncertainties that existed. In many cases, because of these uncertainties, it was impossible to decide who should get the estate, and so estates often went to the Crown, which was the last thing that he or we would have wished.
My hon. Friend was, as I have said, dissatisfied with the Government's original wording. My hon. Friend now informs me that he agrees with the wording contained in this Amendment. If he agrees, then I am sure that most of us on this side will be quite happy with the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 27, leave out from "moveable" to "and" in line 29 and insert
belonging to the deceased at the time of his death or over which the deceased had a power of appointment".

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment to meet a criticism of the definition of "estate" in Clause 35. It was suggested to us that by referring to estate on which the deceased had tested or might have tested the definition would exclude that part of the deceased's estate which might be claimed as jus relictae or legitim, as legal rights may be claimed whether the deceased is testate or not.
The argument was that the deceased cannot test on property which may be

claimed in respect of legal rights. This was perhaps rather an academic point, but as the intention was certainly that the word "estate" should cover all the deceased's property, including any part of it which may be claimed as legal rights, we thought it better to put the matter beyond doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 22 line 39, leave out "properly" and insert "competently".

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment to avoid a verbal inconsistency with Clause 18(2) where the word "competently" is used.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 7, at end insert:
(3) Without prejudice to the proviso to section 23(2) of this Act, references in this Act to the date of execution of a testamentary disposition shall be construed as references to the date on which the disposition was actually executed and not to the date of death of the testator.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the Amendments we made to Clauses 12 and 13 and on the introduction of the new Clause that now follows Clause 29.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, leave out lines 29 to 32.

9.0 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment removes from the Repeal Schedule an Act of the Parliament of Scotland included in that Schedule in error. The effect of the repeal of this Act would be to make heritable for the purposes of succession a type of security, namely, a personal


bond, which has been regarded as moveable for 300 years. This was not intended and the error has now been put right.

Mr. Willis: This is another example of the blundering incompetence of the Government. They did not even know with what Acts of Parliament they were dealing, or what they were trying to repeal. We are glad that the hon. Lady has agreed to rectify the error which the Government have made.
Before we leave the Bill, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on his great skill in dealing with the involved legal matter with which we have been concerned in the course of these proceedings. It is quite clear that we have enough legal talent on this side of the House to provide both a Lord Advocate and a Solicitor-General for Scotland without bothering about the lawyers, and we would probably get along much better. I wish that I could say the same about the Government, because we might then have managed to deal with these matters much more expeditiously.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: If that was in order, I should like to say how much we on this side of the House have admired the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) has conducted the proceedings, not only here, but in the Scottish Standing Committee. That she has done so without legal aid has been almost unparalleled in the annals of the Scottish Committee, and we have all admired it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: One side was allowed to be in order, so the other had to be.

Question put and agreed to.

Title

Postponed Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 4 after "legal" insert "and other prior".

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)

9.4 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
It might also be convenient if we discussed the corresponding Scottish scheme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): If that is agreeable.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Ploughing Grants Schemes are an annual affair and I doubt whether I need spend very much time dealing with Part II which is concerned with the £12 per acre grant, because no significant changes have been made and because the House has always taken kindly to this form of reclamation grant for grassland which is derelict, or virtually so, and which calls for a fair outlay before it can be made fit for cropping. In terms of the national farm these grants help to make good some of the unavoidable loss of agricultural land for development purposes and on individual holdings they are of special help to the farmer in a small way of business who is anxious to increase his effective acreage and therefore his viability.
During the financial year just ended about 42,000 acres in the United Kingdom were improved with the assistance of the Part II grant. Of the £500,000 paid out, about 60 per cent. went to England, a little to Northern Ireland, and the remainder was shared almost equally between Scotland and Wales.
In the draft Scheme, the date from which land must have been continuously under grass is being advanced by a further year, that is to 1st June, 1952. The effect is to maintain the qualifying age of grassland at 12 years. Apart from that, Part II of the Scheme remains virtually unchanged.
In contrast to that, in Part I of the Scheme there are changes in the £5 an acre grant. This sum is paid for ploughing out leys which are at least three years old, although in practice our statistics show that the great majority


of applications are for land which has been under grass for upwards of five years.
During our debates on earlier Ploughing Grants Schemes, some hon. Members have questioned whether there was any need to encourage the practice of taking the plough round the farm, but I am certain that the main body of opinion in the House, and in agricultural circles, recognises that these grants have a useful part to play in the general scheme of things.
The House will recall that the rate of grant was reduced last year as a corollary to the introduction of the Grassland Renovation and Winter Keep Schemes. We have since been considering whether the range of qualifying operations could also be reduced to keep step with the lower rate of grants. This would help to expedite payments, which is particularly important when we remember that these grants often provide the farmer—and particularly the small farmer—with some valuable working capital during the lean months before he can harvest and market his crop. We have also been on the lookout for anything which would reduce the volume of paperwork for the farmer, and at the same time bring down our own administrative costs.
One significant change which we are proposing is to base our payments upon ploughing and the first follow-up operation towards production of a crop, instead of waiting until the crop has actually been sown. At the same time there must be a reasonable assurance of agricultural benefit, and so we have new provisions which confine the grant to land which is already in agricultural use and is suitable both for ploughing and for cropping, or for directly reseeding to grass.
Apart from speeding up payments, the new system will mean fewer and simpler forms for the farmer to complete. Hitherto, we have needed a notification that the land had been ploughed, so that our field officers could verify that the ploughing was from grass, and later the farmer has had to send in a claim when he has actually sown his crop. Some weeks or even months may elapse between the two operations, and this has meant not only two separate forms, but also a risk that the second one might

be overlooked by the farmer. Unfortunately, this has happened in several cases. When it happens, we often have to refuse grant because the claim form has arrived too late.
Several hon. Members have had to take up cases of this sort with me on behalf of their constituents, and I am sure that they and the House will welcome any change which will help to avoid this happening in future. The new system should enable the overwhelming majority of payments to be made on the strength of one form sent in shortly after ploughing has taken place. There may be instances where the follow-up operation is necessarily delayed, for example because heavy land has been ploughed in the autumn and the frost is left to do its work. In this case the farmer may need to complete a separate declaration form when the qualifying operation has been completed.
The procedure in Scotland and Northern Ireland will differ slightly, but each of the Agricultural Departments will be arranging wide publicity to bring their precise arrangements to the notice of all farmers concerned. I am confident that these new arrangements should quickly bring about a very welcome reduction in the number of cases where we have had to withhold grant because the statutory timetable has not been observed.
As a further step towards simplification we propose to relax our rules in those cases where the farmer elects to rotavate his field rather than to plough it. We have no mandate to pay these grants save on ploughing or on operations which produce an equivalent effect. Hitherto, we have insisted upon prior approval for applications involving rotavation, and we have prescribed a depth setting and a minimum of three treatments. In future, we shall accept claims based upon rotavation provided an inspection shows that it has achieved an effect equivalent to ploughing—and always provided, of course, that the other conditions of the Scheme are fulfilled.
Another point of simplification is that we propose to discontinue deductions for unploughed areas such as headlands. In calculating grant, the usual practice has been to work to the Ordnance Survey acreage—which runs to the centre


of any hedge or ditch—and then to scale it down by 2½ per cent. This has caused one or two anomalies, and it presents difficulties where part of a field is ploughed, where hedges are obliterated, ditches are piped, or post-and-wire fences are used.
There is provision in the Schemes to round down claims to the nearest ¼-acre and, provided that the area left un-ploughed is not found to be excessive, we shall treat this rounding-down process as broadly achieving the equivalent of the headlands deduction of 2½ per cent. These changes will together save us several thousands of £s in administrative costs and I am sure that they will also make things easier for the farmer. I am glad to say that the agricultural unions have warmly welcomed them.
The House may wish to have the usual figures relating to the Part I grant. For this purpose I will take the financial year 1963–64, because it provides the latest available figures. At the same time, I must point out that payments over this period are not altogether representative, as they stem partly from claims under the 1962 Scheme—when the rate of grant was £7 an acre—and partly from claims for the £5 grant available under the present Scheme.
With that reservation I can say that the total United Kingdom payments of Part I grant were just short of £9½ million, of which 53 per cent. went to England, 25 per cent. to Scotland, 13 per cent. to Northern Ireland and 9 per cent. to Wales. In all, during the last financial year, a total of nearly 1½ million acres was ploughed up with assistance under the Part I grant, and this is barely 75,000 acres short of the high level of ploughings reached in 1962–63. Indeed, compared with last year, the United Kingdom tillage area—land ploughed with or without grant under our Schemes—has increased by some 130,000 acres.
With that picture of the immediate past and with the provision for speedier payments and an easy and simplified procedure in the near future, I commend these Schemes for the approval of the House.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: As the Parliamentary Secretary has explained the Schemes in detail and as, in any case, there is an Explanatory Note to them, I assume that hon. Members know what the Government are doing. There is, therefore, no reason for me to do more than what I would call a polite "waffle", because we are to have a very important debate on winter keep after this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) has a very important Adjournment debate.
At the same time, these Schemes involve the expenditure of a lot of money. The amount under the Part I grant for 1963–64 was £9½ million, of which 53 per cent. was spent in the United Kingdom. I am not responsible for Scottish agricultural matters, but we are told that Scotland received 25 per cent. of that sum—

Mr. Henry Clark: Is the hon. Member suggesting that Northern Ireland and Scotland are not part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member, who has obviously just wakened up, will be patient. If I have made a mistake, I am very sorry. I certainly know where Northern Ireland is. All I say is that the main part of the grant in that year went to England, and that Scotland had the next largest share. I hope that I am not being provoked, because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
I approve of the Schemes, which improve administration. It is important that the farmer should have less form filling, and the Minister has given us an assurance that the Schemes will help to bring this about. I am also glad that payment will be made more quickly. We shall watch this carefully, and, if we have any information to the contrary from constituents or elsewhere, we shall press the Minister about it in a constructive sense.
The purpose of the Schemes is to continue grants which have been given and to improve administration. Therefore, they have the approval of the House. These grants are important. They are mentioned in the Price Review. There is a useful table in Appendix 5 giving


the incidence of the grants over a long period. The ploughing grant was £5·4 million in 1955–56 and it rose to a peak of £11½ million in 1961–62. It will go down to £7·3 million in 1965–65.
These grants are useful. The Undersecretary of State for Scotland used to take a contrary view. It would be interesting to know his view now that he is a member of the Government. I have always welcomed these grants. I hope that the hon. Member will not intervene in the debate, because it could embarrass his colleagues who represent the English part of the Administration. I hope that the Schemes will be approved.

9.16 p.m.

Sir Richard Glyn: I am sure that the House is glad to know, from the endorsement of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), that the Opposition approve the principle of these ploughing grants. I say immediately that I agree entirely that they are very useful.
The Scheme is particularly happy; speaking personally and as a farmer, I am delighted not only that we have a simplification of procedure, which is always most desirable and important, but that we have also overcome one of the principal difficulties of the old Scheme, whereby notice of intention to plough had to be given before ploughing began. Under this Scheme it need not be given before ploughing is begun as long as the application for the grant is made by the end of the month after that in which the land is ploughed.
Like many other representatives of agricultural constituencies, I have known of much friction and difficulty caused by cases in which a busy farmer has made a telephone call or given notice of ploughing in a rather informal way which has not been sufficiently recorded, and as a result sometimes under the letter of the law, as it stood until now, there has been some difficulty in establishing whether proper notice had been given. My right hon. Friend's Department has always been most reasonable in these cases and has tried to help, but there has sometimes been a difficulty, and to a great extent that difficulty will be overcome by the new Scheme, which I welcome.
It is happy that we are likely to have speedier payments. This will make a great difference, particularly to the smaller farmer who does not have a great deal of capital but who perhaps has taken over or inherited a farm and wishes to get it in good order quickly. The earlier payment will prove a great asset to him. The alternative further operations now allowed include spreading lime and fertiliser. There have been suggestions that this might no longer be available, and I am happy to see that this opinion has not made itself felt and that spreading lime or fertiliser will be one of the permitted alternatives in the way of further operations. I am glad to see that rotivation is being recognised rather more than it has in the past.
For all these reasons, I think that the Scheme in the form in which we are considering it tonight is a marked improvement on the one under which the grants formerly operated. I warmly welcome the Scheme.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn), I do not propose to deal with the principle contained in the Schemes. I wish to discuss the mechanics of the Schemes and the way in which they are to be put into force.
I warmly welcome the alteration which makes it unnecessary to give notice of ploughing within 21 days after it has been completed. This has caused a very great deal of hardship in the past. I have gone into this matter with some particularity. I think I am right in saying that the provision cost Scottish farmers last year no less than £25,000, which on a national scale may not be very much but which from the point of view of individual farmers is a great deal of money. Taking England and Wales into account, the sum involved must have been considerable. The elimination of this provision will avoid a great deal of hardship in the current year. I thank the Government for eliminating the provision.
I ask the Government to reconsider the requirement that the application for grant must be made before a certain date. I ask the Government to be very much more flexible. Under the English Scheme an application must be received


by the Minister not later than the end of the month following that in which the ploughing takes place. In Scotland last year the application for grant must have been made not later than 31st July. For some reason or other, in 1965 the date before which application must be made is not 31st July, but 30th June, one whole month earlier. Many farmers may be caught out by this alteration. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Scotland to take great care to ensure that farmers are notified of this change in the date before which application must be made.
The Schemes provide that, if application is not made before that fixed date, grants may be withheld, unless the Minister, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, allows them to be received after that date. In the past this has caused a very great deal of hardship. For some reason or other a farmer may not make his application in time. His application may be lost, or he may not be able to prove that his application was received. The Schemes require him to prove that his application was received. In such an event he may be mulcted not of a modest sum but of hundreds of pounds. In an Adjournment debate I had not long ago I told my hon. Friend the Undersecretary about a farmer who suffered a loss under the former Scheme and other Measures of no less than £856 for this reason. It is unreasonable literally to fine a farmer for a mere technical fault like that.
I ask the Government to be more lenient than they have been in the past in dealing with such cases. If a farmer gives any reasonable excuse, at any rate part of the grant should be allowed. I do not propose that any alteration should be made in the Schemes at this moment, but I ask my hon. Friends to take steps, when framing similar Measures in the future, to make the punishment fit the crime. I am the first to admit that a farmer who is lazy and does not get his application in in time ought to be penalised in some way, but for a purely technical fault a fine of £5 or £10 is probably a sufficiently severe penalty and would probably ensure that he would get his application in in time in the future.
It is beyond all reason that a farmer should run the risk of being fined a sum running into hundreds of £s for a mere technical breach. There have been cases in my constituency and in others throughout the country in which men have literally been made almost bankrupt by a very harsh application of the regulations as they are drafted at present.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) in his quarrel with the Government about the dates by which applications should be made. There may be very good reasons for being late, but, clearly, we must have a date. On previous occasions when we have discussed these grants there has been a fairly large volume of opinion in the House that the ploughing grant under Part I should be abolished. The general argument put forward, particularly from the other side of the House, was that we were paying farmers for doing something which every good farmer does.
One of the protagonists in those debates was the present Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). If I remember correctly, he was usually on the side of those who thought that Part I grants should be abolished. I am surprised, therefore, that on this occasion when he is in office he should come forward with a scheme very similar to previous schemes, with the exception that the grant itself has been reduced.
I rise to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland what led him to change his mind between the time when he sat on the third back-bench opposite and his translation to the Government Front Bench. It would be interesting to know the reasons which have led him into believing that it is a good thing to continue this grant. On previous occasions we have been told that the possibility of doing away with the Part I grant had been considered but certain reasons have been given why it was not possible. I cannot help remembering the many arguments advanced in previous years for discontinuing the grant and using the money which might have been saved in some better way for


increasing production. The Joint Under-secretary of State for Scotland frequently waxed eloquent on those occasions and made learned speeches about the other direction in which we should use this fund to the benefit of agriculture. We ought to be given some of these reasons before we dispose of the Scheme.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I give my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture full support on this Scheme. I think that I have been fairly consistent on this question. When there was a great deal of criticism of the principle of the Part I ploughing grants I always maintained that it was a good principle. I should like to tell the House why I think that the grant is soundly based.
The arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) are good, and so have been the arguments advanced in the past by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but it has always seemed to me that in giving grants towards better farming it is necessary to have a balance between what I might call the pure arable areas, of the kind which I represent, and those where there is a high proportion of grassland and which on the whole are not doing as well financially as are the arable areas. It always seemed to me a justification of the grant that it was payment specifically made to areas where grassland was in a fairly high proportion.
I believe that that in itself is a justification for retaining the ordinary Part I grant and, therefore, I am delighted to support my hon. Friend.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am glad the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has welcomed these Schemes. I am sure that they will be of benefit to agriculture.
I should like to refer to the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn), who talked about the giving of notice of the intention to plough. I think that this must have been a slip of the tongue on his part. In the past notice of intention to plough was required only under Part II. What was necessary

under Part I was the fact of having ploughed. Notice of that fact had to be given within 21 days. Later, when the crop was sown, an application had to be made at that stage for a grant. What will happen now is that within a month, ploughing and one of the operations mentioned in the Schedule will normally be performed. As my hon. Friend has said, this will increase the speed with which farmers will receive payment for ploughing.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) about the necessity for keeping Part I. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will realise the importance to the farming community of this Part I ploughing scheme. Between 1949 and 1951 when the ploughing grant was discontinued, the tillage acreage fell by 1 million acres in this country. The first person to suffer if Part I were to be discontinued would be the small farmer because this is of great value to him.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman should put the case fairly. I said that arguments in the past have revolved around the fact that the money used for the Part I grant could be used more beneficially in other directions.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was saying that this is an extremely beneficial way of using this money, and that if this grant were discontinued and the money were applied elsewhere it would be the small farmer who would suffer. I added that when the grant was discontinued, tillage acreage dropped by 1 million acres.
Turning to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), he ought to realise that we are dealing with public funds and that there is a need to safeguard them. By dispensing with 100,000 forms and saving £15,000 in administration costs, we are trying to speed up the process. Nevertheless, it would be wrong if we did not take precautions to see that public money was properly spent. This must mean a certain amount of checking and it means also that there must be a closing date.
I was asked if I could be more flexible. We are always willing to be flexible, but we must safeguard the spending of public


funds. I do not want to be drawn into the subject of the Adjournment debate which took place the other day when my hon. Friend put forward his idea for making the punishment fit the crime. I do not believe that these ploughing grants are the right vehicle by which to impose fines on the fanning community or for instituting a sliding scale. However, I will not develop that point, which was dealt with exhaustively in the Adjournment debate.
I seem to have covered all the points which have been made. I am sure that this grant will be of benefit to the agricultural community through the speeding up and simplification of the process. I therefore commend the Schemes to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1964 [draft laid before the House, 23rd April], approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (WINTER KEEP)

9.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. A. Stodart): I beg to move,
That the Winter Keep (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Scheme 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it might be convenient for the House to consider, at the time time, the draft Winter Keep (Scotland) (Amendment) Scheme.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so pleases.

Mr. Stodart: These draft Schemes give effect to changes which were announced in the Annual Review White Paper. The Scottish Scheme, in addition, redefines what an agricultural unit is and what an eligible occupier is, and it substitutes the definition of "crofter" for the definition of "croft" in the existing Scheme. These latter small amendments have been made to clarify the relationship between eligibility for winter keep grant and other grants available under crofting legislation and to strengthen the safeguards against double payment. They do no more than that. They merely make clear

that these grants should not be paid to people who benefit from grants under the special crofting Acts.
I remind the House of the fundamental purpose of the winter keep Schemes, in view of the considerable discussion to which they have given rise. Their object was to help farmers who, because of the natural conditions which govern or, at least, guide them in their farming operations, have had difficulty in providing enough keep for their stock during the winter, and who have found that the lack of it has limited them in getting the best possible returns out of their farms.
The operation of the Schemes is limited to land which is defined as livestock-rearing. These are words which are well-known, for it is 13 years since they were first defined in the original Livestock Rearing Act, 1951. To be livestock-rearing, for the purpose of Government grant, land has to be situated in an area which consists predominantly of mountain, hill or heath; and it must be land which is suitable, or which can be made suitable by improving it, for the breeding, rearing or maintenance of sheep or cattle.
I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will agree with me when I say that a farmer should be influenced very strongly indeed in choosing his lines of production by the natural conditions which have been gifted to his farm. To grow corn on a big commercial scale on high, cold land where it will not ripen until well on in the autumn is to fly in the face of what nature intended. This is why we do not want to encourage the use of livestock-rearing land for the growing of crops to be sold for cash as opposed to those grown for the feeding of stock, for use by the specialist dairy farmer or for the fattening of cattle or sheep.
Having given this background to the Schemes, I wish now to deal with the two changes which it is proposed should be made in them. In each, the ploughing grant, which we have just been discussing, is to be made available on the same conditions as apply to it elsewhere and not, as at present, only as an alternative to the winter keep grant. In each, too, the rate of winter keep grant is being raised by £1 an acre. This brings the rate in England and


Wales and Northern Ireland up to £3 an acre. In Scotland, where, as hon. Members are aware, there are three rates according to whether farms eligible are graded A, B or C, the new rates are to be £2 10s., £3 10s., and £5 an acre respectively. These we estimate—and I am afraid that until we have experience of actual claims I cannot, with the best will in the world, provide the House with precise figures—will produce an average payment of £3 an acre. The increased rates will apply to crops grown this year for feeding to stock next winter.
The cost of restoring the ploughing grant plus the increase in the winter keep rate is estimated at between £1½ and £1¾ million, of which rather more than half will go to Scotland and about a quarter to Wales. In Scotland, we have been able to classify all our farms, and about 14,500 will be eligible for grants at the different rates. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom it will not be possible to give precise figures until applications have been received and considered on an individual basis. One reason for this is that applications in England and Wales had to be in to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food only on 30th April, 12 days ago.
In each country there is machinery for appeals to be heard either against exclusion from the schemes, or, in Scotland, against the grading of a farm, and, although I should not pretend for one moment that everyone is satisfied with his grading, or with the way in which his appeal has been dealt with, I should like to pay a tribute to those who are giving much of their time to help with the consideration of these appeals. I hope that the new system will achieve a uniformity of grading throughout Scotland, thus eliminating one of the main criticisms which used to be directed at M.A.P.
These are Schemes which, right at the very inception, were welcomed by the National Farmers' Unions in principle. The changes which we propose and which I have described, with, I hope, reasonable clarity, will improve their detailed working and I commend them to the House.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I understand that we are discuss-

ing the Scottish Scheme as well, and it is to that that I want to address a few remarks.
As the Minister is well aware, the running down of M.A.P. caused great concern in the hill areas of Scotland, particularly in the Highlands. Last year we were informed that the great majority of the £1·3 million which would be available under this Scheme in Scotland would go to the hill farms. The Under-secretary of State at that time said that, in his view, they would be slightly better off in total under this Scheme than under M.A.P. I think that he calculated that about £1·2 million would be applied under the M.A.P. Scheme as against £1·3 million under this.
The first question which I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State is whether that has proved the case. Have the hill farms benefited, as he said? He said this evening that 14,500 farms are eligible at the different rates. If he cannot tell us exactly, can he tell us how many farms which were or are eligible for M.A.P. will be cut out from this Scheme and how this now compares in total with the old amount of money paid under M.A.P.?
The Under-Secretary mentioned that there was anxiety over grading, and there certainly was. A sore point in parts of the Highlands and of my constituency has always been that some farms, for instance, in the North Isles of Orkney, were excluded while other farms which appeared to the farmers, at any rate, to be of much the same nature were included. I wonder whether this new grading scheme has led to any better method in this regard and whether the Under-Secretary can say a word about this. The increase of £1 per acre will be extremely welcome. This was what the National Farmers' Union suggested last year as the minimum amount.
I understand also that in some parts of the country there has been a tendency to cut out farms, from, for instance, hill land subsidy, although I understand that the farms will get the hill cattle subsidy, if they qualify under the Winter Keep Scheme. I should like the hon. Gentleman to say to what extent the policy has been to reduce the number of farms which got these various forms of marginal assistance and what the general effect has been.
Last year, I questioned the definition of "crofter", which is an old vintage, complicated subject. With their usual skill, the Government avoided the question and wrote me a letter afterwards saying that it was all very difficult and that they would give attention to it. I take it that the attention has emerged this year in the Scheme in an attempt at redefinition. The Government have not, however, made the situation much better, because the Scheme states that
'crofter' means a crofter within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Acts 1955 and 1961.
We all guessed that.
The trouble is that in the Crofters (Scotland) Act, a crofter is defined as a man who has a croft, and the old definition applied to crofts. I do not, therefore, know whether this carries us much further. No doubt, the Under-Secretary will explain this with his usual lucidity.
It will be seen also from the Scheme that
'agricultural unit' means land, other than land occupied by any person as a crofter or as an eligible occupier"—
those people, of course, get grants under a different Scheme—
which is occupied as a unit for agricultural purposes, together with any other land, including land held in common, used in connection with such land for the purpose of grazing.
Bearing in mind that this is a definition of a holding which is not a croft, I shall be grateful to the Under-Secretary for an explanation of exactly what this means.
I remind the hon. Gentleman once again that the people who have to make sense of what we pass in this House are busy people who do not want to employ lawyers. It would be a great advantage if, one year at least, we could have a simple definition of what a crofter is. This might also be supplemented by a definition in simple terms of an eligible occupier.
I take it that the purpose of all this is simply to keep the two Schemes apart and to prevent a man who applies under one Scheme from applying under another Scheme at the same time. I am not Sure, however, that where a man holds

under different forms of tenure, this definition will make the position much easier. With those questions and remarks, in general I accept that this may be an improvement on last year's Scheme, but I hope that we shall have answers to the points which I have raised.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I should like to point out to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland an anomaly which appears to be arising. In the North Riding of Yorkshire, about 1,000 applications have been made for schemes and I understand that about 300 of them are likely to be approved. A man who is milking 50 cows and who has a large amount of land is probably in a position to qualify, because the word "predominantly" is continuously repeated. It is questionable what "predominantly" means. As I see it, it should mean 51 per cent., but I believe that the Ministry interprets it as being 60 per cent. of the income of the holding.
Obviously, it would be unwise to encourage farmers in that area to grow cash crops, but, at the same time, people who farm these smallholdings often eke out their income by the monthly milk cheque. The cheques for rearing sheep and cattle come in probably once a year from the store sales.
I think that a fairer method could have been found than this division of 60 per cent. and 40 per cent., and I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider that a reduction of half an acre per dairy cow or something on those lines would be fairer, because then the man milking 50 cows and getting winter keep grant would be penalised and the small man milking 10 or 15 cows would probably be able to get some assistance from this grant. I think that it would overcome a good deal of the hardship with which they are faced, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider thinking about this at least for another year.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The Prime Minister, I think, said that winter keep was engraved upon his heart. Certainly anyone who took part


in the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election found that this was a burning issue at that election, and quite clearly the farmers of Kinross and Perthshire at that time thought they were getting a raw deal from the Government, and they were very vocal about it. It seems to me from the figures the hon. Gentlemen has given us that probably, although the farmers have accepted this increase and have said that it comes somewhere near what they were expecting they are still not getting too good a deal out of this.
The hon. Gentleman said that the total cost for the whole of the country—I think I have the figures correctly—would be between £1½ million and £1¼ million and that one-half of that would go to Scotland. In other words, the total going to Scotland is now £750,000. This is part of the scheme which replaces the M.A.P.—the marginal agricultural production—grants. It seems to me that this is well below the amounts being paid out under the M.A.P. schemes, and therefore it would appear that the farming communities in the diffifficult areas—and we should remember that they are difficult areas—are suffering as a result of the change in the system.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman how many are eligible for this grant. He has given us the figure of 14,500. How does that compare with the number receiving grant under the M.A.P. schemes? It is important, because it is with this that the comparison is made. We ought to know exactly what is happening.
It is important to examine it, too, because the hon. Gentleman also said that, although the figures for each of the three grades had been increased by £1 per acre to £2 10s., £3 10s. and £5, the average would work out at approximately £3 per acre. That means that not very many people can be getting £5 per acre. It also means that many must be getting £2 10s. per acre. That is bound to be so, if two of the categories are over £3. I have not had time to work this out mathematically. One could work out mathematically what the proportions would be. At a first look at the figures provided by the hon. Gentleman—and this is the first time we have had these figures given us—it would appear that the average is now

working out at £3, and it appears that a lot of farmers are going to get only £2 10s. an acre. They are getting £3 an acre in England and Wales. I wonder what the reasons are why farmers in Scotland—the majority, as far as I can see from the figures given—are to get only £2 10s. an acre while south of the Border, no matter what the farm is like, the farmer will get £3 an acre. It appears to me to require some justification. There may be a good reason for it; I do not know. Looking at it, it appears that we ought to have some explanation of the facts.
Apart from that, like everyone else, we welcome what has been done. I do not think that the Government have yet dealt with the matter properly, but we welcome it so far as it has gone.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I was a little surprised at the way the Scheme was introduced by the Under-Secretary. He said that the reason for its introduction was to make perfectly clear the purpose for which the winter keep grant was being provided. That is not the reason at all. The reason is that the Government abolished M.A.P., and this is a substitute for it. Hon. Members should realise that what we are discussing tonight is what is replacing M.A.P. for an important section of the farming community.
I am delighted at the attendance in the House tonight. Nothing fills the House quite so much as farming and grants. That subject always ensures a good attendance of the farming Members. I remember the story of the minister who, whenever he wanted to keep his flock awake in church, introduced the word "grant", such as in the phrase "God grant unto us". At the word "grant" all the farmers sat up in their seats.
I want particularly to consider the question of farmers in the farming communities and in the uplands. They do not regard the scheme as being very satisfactory. When it was first introduced we had a tremendous protest meeting in Inverness of the farmers in the Highland crofting constituencies. They were very angry. I will not go over what they said, but if anyone is


interested he should read the Scottish Farmer for October last year.
The farmers made it plain that they felt that they had been done by the Government by the abolition of M.A.P. and the introduction of the winter keep scheme. As a consequence of it, they felt all the poorer. They said that it would make it impossible for many more of them to continue farming in the upland areas and that it would increase the drift to the South because it would mean that there would be no prospect for the younger people in their areas.
As to the increase in rates mentioned by the Joint Under-Secretary, I was very much surprised, like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the average would work out at about £3 per acre. That seems a very low average indeed. The Scheme says that the minimum to be paid to any farm is £2 10s. per acre, rising to £3 10s. and £5 in the top class. The Under-Secretary has apparently made an estimate and says that the Scottish farmers will probably get an average of £3 per acre.
That is very low indeed. When one considers the problems of the farmers in the crofting counties and on the upland farms, I do not think that it will deal with their situation at all. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to break down the figures and tell us more exactly how the money will be distributed. I know that 14,500 have been classified.
There has been considerable complaint about the classifications of a large number of farms. In the Midlothian area, farmers in adjacent districts are in different categories and this has caused some ill-feeling. Indeed, some farms adjacent to each other are in different classes. As a result, some farmers are to receive substantially more than their next-door neighbours. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us how this has been divided. I take it that the figure he gave represented the increase to be paid under this Scheme and not the total sum.

Mr. Stodart: Mr. Stodart indicated assent.

Mr. Hoy: Even so, I wonder why we are to have such a low average as £3. That is very puzzling. How have these farms come to be classified and what does the figure of 14,500 represent in the different categories? The farming community would welcome this information.
When the Scheme was being drafted—this all stems from the Price Review—what representations were received from farmers in areas most acutely affected? I am thinking particularly of the Highlands and Islands, where the farmers were very angry with the Government and said quite plainly last year that when the Government abolished M.A.P. and introduced a Winter Keep Scheme they had betrayed the farmers in those areas. Before we finally approve the Scheme, we want an assurance that the Government have the agreement of the farmers most acutely affected.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: When the winter keep system was inaugurated last year, replacing the old M.A.P. Scheme, great concern was shown. Indeed, anxiety was forcefully expressed by deputations which waited upon Ministers. If the Government had had their way, M.A.P. would have been abolished almost overnight. The rundown period which afforded the Government an opportunity to bring in the upland farmers was brought about by continued pressure from this side of the House. I, too, am concerned with the pertinent point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Obviously, if the average payment is only £3 an acre, a greater proportion of the grant will be paid at £2 10s. per acre than at the higher rate.
When there is a grant of £3 per acre in England and Wales, we should be told why there is a discrimination in respect of payments for Scottish upland farms. I do not want to do the job of the Scottish National Farmers' Union and this is a matter which it must have put before the hon. Gentleman forcibly, but I should like him to tell us what negotiations there were about this feature of the Scheme. He said that it would be difficult to estimate what success the Scheme would have, but could he say how many payments he expects to be


made? Can he say how many payments to Scottish upland farmers will be made at the rate of £2 10s. per acre as against £5 per acre? That would be an interesting figure.
Another matter which has caused concern in upland farming areas is the withdrawal of the M.A.P. Scheme from upland dairy farms. I understand that these dairy farms are not to have the advantage of the Winter Keep Scheme. Why should they be excluded? The Under-Secretary will recognise that a fairly wide range of dairy farms in hilly upland areas are ceasing their production of milk, so that rural communities in these areas may have to get their milk from Glasgow or elsewhere and not locally. At certain times of the year, householders in these areas will find it very difficult to get milk.
I understand that the payment of the ploughing grant no longer disqualifies the farmer concerned from the receipt of winter keep grant. Did the Under-secretary include the ploughing grant in the figure of £1,500,000 to £1,750,000?

Mr. Stodart: Yes.

Mr. Manuel: It is not £750,000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, thought, paid out in winter keep, but £750,000 containing a proportion of the ploughing grant.

Mr. Stodart: In addition.

Mr. Manuel: So that the figure is £1,500,000, or £1,750,000, and the ploughing grant will be additional to that total figure?

Mr. Stodart: Let there be no misunderstanding. I have checked my notes and found that the figure I gave was £1,500,000 or £1,750,000 as the addition of the increased rate and the introduction of the ploughing subsidy, not the cost of the whole Scheme.

Mr. Manuel: To clear up the matter, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what he estimates the annual output will be for the ploughing grant? He should be able to tell us that on the basis of past records.
I think that we must be told what proportion of the ploughing grant will

be paid to the upland farmer to enable us to make a proper assessment of the viability of these small farms in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assure the House that in his negotiations with the sub-committee of the Scottish N.F.U. he was able to get the members of that sub-committee to agree that this average £3 was sufficient to keep farms viable in these difficult areas. If they were of the opinion that £3 was insufficient for that purpose, quite obviously we are at a disadvantage with an all-round figure of £3 per acre for winter keep in England and Wales.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Stodart: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to the points which have been raised. We have had a predominantly Scottish debate, but I do not think that we need apologise for that, considering that four-fifths of our land area consists of mountain, hill, or heath.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked whether I could assure him that hill farms generally will be better off than they were under the M.A.P. Scheme. From all the calculations that we can make, the answer is that they will be, because not only are they eligible for the Winter Keep Scheme, but eligibility for that will bring to many who were previously outside it qualification for hill cow subsidy.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether any farms which had been getting M.A.P. had been excluded from the Winter Keep Scheme. The answer is that some have been, although I cannot give a precise figure. It may well be that, thanks to the new varieties of cereals which have been introduced, some farms are now growing substantial and profitable cash crops of barley, and even wheat, where in the old days it was impossible to do that. The numbers are small, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, I shall do my best, if the figures are available, to let him have them.

Mr. Manuel: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that they will be excluded from the Winter Keep Scheme?

Mr. Stodart: I shall come to that point. I assure the hon. Gentleman


that I shall not neglect the various points that he made.
There is no policy of reducing the number of farms which qualify for this kind of help. At the very peak of M.A.P., 10,000 farms were receiving assistance from that Scheme. As I have said, 14,500 are qualifying for winter keep.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me to try to define a crofter. I have discovered, and so has the right hon. Gentleman, that according to the Scheme it means the tenant of a croft—or perhaps that is the definition in the Act which I looked up. There are fairly substantial definitions of a crofter in the 1955 Act, and I have no doubt that the Land Court would assist the right hon. Gentleman if he was in difficulties.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was the first of two or three hon. Members to ask about the average. This Scheme is in its earliest stages, and, as I think I told the hon. Member, it is difficult to give any accurate figures because the cropping returns are not yet in.
It may interest the hon. Member to know that of the 14,500 farms, 3,000 have been graded A, 4,000—and I am giving the roundest of round figures—have been graded B, and 7,500 graded C. What I cannot give, because we do not yet have the information, is the number of acres on these individual farms for which winter keep is being applied for, but the hon. Member and the House will realise that the C grade is almost certainly likely—because of the very geographical nature of the place—to have fewer acres on which to grow this winter keep—being high up the mountain side. I think that he will find there the reason for the discrepancy that worries him.
The best calculation that we can make in these early days is that the average will work out at about £3 an acre. I think that the hon. Member has already taken the point that the figure I gave was of additional cost. The total United Kingdom expenditure on winter keep is estimated to be £3·1 million, of which Scotland is getting £1·7 million, or just over half.

Mr. Willis: How does that compare with M.A.P.?

Mr. Stodart: England got no M.A.P. at all in the later stages, going for the small farmer scheme instead.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) described winter keep as a substitute for M.A.P., but I firmly believe it to be a great improvement. M.A.P., while being extremely useful when it was introduced in 1949, stimulated production without discriminating between what was best suited to a farm and what was less suited. It really paid comparatively little attention—and I do not criticise it for doing so in days when food was in short supply—to the cost of production. The general virtue of winter keep is that it stimulates farmers to produce what their farms are best suited for.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) referred to the production of milk on the upland dairy farms. On these high, outlying farms—not so much because they are outlying, but because they are high—the problem is the high cost of production. I estimate that it probably costs about 20 per cent. more to produce a gallon of milk on those high farms than it does on the low ground. The average receipts of these upland dairy farms under M.A.P. was £90 per farm; the average increase they will get from the increased milk price will, we reckon, be £200 a farm. They will be that much better off as a result of the increased price of milk. I fully realise that what he has said about supplies in the remote areas is a point of substance, and I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is watching this matter with considerable care.
As this has, to a considerable extent, been a Scottish debate, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) will allow me to reply to him in writing, as I will gladly do.
This is a completely new Scheme. It has involved the classifying and reclassifying of thousands of farms in nearly every county of Scotland and in many counties in the United Kingdom. I do not deny for a moment that there have been teething troubles. Indeed, it would


have been strange if there had not. But the Scheme as I recommend it to the House is, I think, very fair and I hope that all people, not only in the House but outside it, realise its importance to all who depend on this country for so much of their food.
In Scotland, we sing with some deep intensity and feeling a Psalm which begins:
I to the hills will lift mine eyes from whence dost come mine aid.
It is to these hills that people, whether they live in the town or in the country,

must look for much of their food. These Schemes will make the contribution of those hills in my belief much more substantial. I have pleasure in commending them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Winter Keep (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Scheme 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

Winter Keep (Scotland) (Amendment) Scheme 1964 [draft laid before the House, 23rd April], approved.—[Mr. Stodart.]

Orders of the Day — EGGS (GUARANTEED PRICES)

Motion made and Question proposed,
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 462), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

10.22 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: May I ask three simple questions about the Order? I welcome it because, although I have to accept some responsibility in the past, I have never felt that there was a commanding case for treating duck eggs less favourably than hen eggs under the guarantee system. I know that there were arguments for this, and I must admit that I cannot recall them all. The case was fairly evenly balanced. Hen eggs were treated more favourably.
This Order makes some advance and tends to treat the two much more on a basis of equality, which I am sure will commend itself to hon. Members. I always think that ducks are much more attractive birds than hens, and I never entirely understood why there was this distinction under the guarantee system. I know that in some quarters it was argued that duck eggs were carriers of certain food poisoning agents, and in the public interest I should like it to be made clear that it has been found that this argument was exaggerated and that the weight which we attached to it was perhaps not fully justified.
Referring to the Explanatory Note, I read that
… no provision is made for any adjustment in consequence of abnormal imports of duck eggs.
I like to think that where duck eggs are imported into this country there is a reasonable assurance that there is no risk to human health resulting from the import of those eggs. This line of argument has been advanced, and I feel that it is only fair that it should be cleared up.
My final point concerns the heading—"The Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1964." It refers to "laid before Parliament"—eggs laid before Parliament, which, I think, is a new term.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I apologise to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), who, I know, has an important Adjournment debate, but I have heard him from time to time make disparaging remarks about agricultural subsidies and agriculture generally, and I think that he will now realise that some hon. Members like to examine with some detail Orders and subsidy proposals which are put before the House.

Mr. Frank Tomney: May I ask whether I am being deliberately provoked? I have been sitting here waiting all day waiting for my very important debate and trying to keep my temper. Is ask that I be not provoked at this hour.

Mr. Prior: I thought I would get a reply to that.
Every year we have a very short debate on the subject of eggs. Every year I take the opportunity of complaining about the Government's import policy towards them. I notice that in the first three months of this year imports are down on last year, but they still constitute a grave interference with the home marketing of eggs. I impress upon my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the subsidy paid for eggs is governed very largely by the freedom of imports.
There could be some justification for imports if the home price was too high, or if there was a shortage of eggs. In fact, we are producing 100 per cent. of our requirements and the price of eggs is very low. At the moment the average price of imported eggs works out at 2d. each. This must mean that they are dumped here. If I thought that it was to the advantage of the public to have these cheap eggs, I would think that such imports could be justified. But, obviously, the public does not like these imported eggs. Most of them have to be broken out and sold in liquid or in frozen form. They constitute a nuisance to the public and a great burden to the Exchequer.
In recent years the subsidy bill for eggs has fallen, but it still amounts to several millions of pounds. I regard this as something which the Treasury should avoid. I hope that my hon.


Friend will use his best powers to cut out these imports. They serve no useful purpose either to the country that sends them or to this country, which receives them. I hope that in passing this Order, which deals with the indicated price, which is determined—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. There is no provision in the Order about imports. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the regulation of imports.

Mr. Prior: I will not argue about your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The Order deals with the indicated price, which is governed by the importing of eggs. The new Article 4(b) refers—
in the case of hen eggs, to normal imports into the United Kingdom during the year …
I believe that there should not be any imports and, therefore, this new provision should not be included. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass my remarks on to the Board of Trade and impress upon the Board of Trade the need to cut out these imports.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The problem with which the Order which this Order amends was designed to deal was largely the effect of dumped imports, or imports the cost of whose manufacture could not properly be assessed in the first place, upon the domestic market price of British agriculture as a whole. That intention is carried on by this Order.
What this Order is less competent to deal with, although the words
such terms and conditions as they may specify
could possibly comprehend it, is an additional hazard which has arisen since the substantive Order was laid before the House. I refer to the very large producer who is threatening to produce such a large percentage of the country's egg production that the whole scheme could prove completely futile in its attempt to stabilise the income of the egg producer.
I hope, therefore, that when my hon. Friend replies he will indicate which aspects of the problem I have raised come under the phrase

… in the light of the aforesaid conclusions and subject to such terms and conditions as they may specify …
I offer those words for the benefit of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who does not seem to be fully seized of the relevance to the scheme of the question I have raised. I hope that my hon. Friend will say what action under this Scheme, or in some other way, the Government propose to take, or at least the line on which they are thinking.
Quite apart from the hazard to the market in this country as a whole which disease might bring if we have a very large producer, we must not allow ourselves to forget that egg production is part of the agricultural pattern of the country. If it becomes a thoroughly unprofitable part of the agricultural sysem, a proportion of the agricultural net income will be lost and will have to be made up in other ways. This therefore is a question of some substance.
I put it to my hon. Friend that the time has come when the problem must be tackled. Unless we tackle it almost immediately it will be too late to do so, except for emergency legislation which might appear to be onerously selective. If we lay down qualifications and conditions which would serve as a limitation on new producers of eggs the appearance of this problem might, be prevented.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) on Article 4, the substitute article in the drafting, which talks about normal imports. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would like to comment on the possibility that there will have to be a special interpretation of the article in view of the coming into effect of Common Market agricultural policy, which undoubtedly will seriously affect the export of Danish eggs.
Although I realise that on the figures for the first quarter of this year imports of Danish eggs into this country are well below the figures for the preceding year, there is a real fear that Danish eggs may be deflected from the German market and may add to the difficulties of the


English market. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would comment on this point.

10.34 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) raised a question about health risks. I must make the point at once that this scheme deals only with duck eggs. There are, I think, no specific regulations dealing with the inspection of imported duck eggs—although there are health regulations for processed eggs of any sort—but, of course, action could always be taken, if necessary, under general public health legislation. I have noted what my hon. Friend has said about criticisms of duck eggs in the past.
There seems to be some confusion about this scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland will realise that there was no time last year to bring in new regulations for duck eggs at the same time as the guarantee arrangements for hen eggs were altered. We are doing that now in this Order. All we are doing in this Order is to amend the original hen egg Order of last year by adding to it a provision in respect of duck eggs. Hon. Members will see on page 2 of the Order a reiteration of what was contained in the 1963 Order with the addition of a reference to duck eggs.
Imports of duck eggs are minute, but with regard to imports of hen eggs in shell, there is provision in the 1963 Order for additional payments of hen egg subsidy to be made if imports rise above a certain norm. However, the main problem with eggs is rather the relationship between home production and demand.
Basically, we are dealing solely with duck eggs, adding them to last year's Order, which introduced an indicator price system, and so on, for hen eggs. I hope that this answers the various points which have been raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 462), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (TRANSFER TO GLASGOW)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: One thing is certain. Had I been provided with a plentiful supply of duck eggs or hen eggs, I could have made good use of them tonight, but not for the purpose of digestion.
There are times when democracy should seem to be at work. There are times when those who support democracy should be allowed to see democracy at work. One would have thought, looking at the Order Paper of the House of Commons this morning, that this very important debate on the removal of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow warranted more time than we can now give to it. This concerns the livelihood, the future and the hopes of many hundreds of London people. Every London Member is concerned in this matter.
Every London Member who has received the remarkable publication dispatched to the House of Commons by the Civil Service Clerical Association, the Society of Civil Servants and the Union of Post Office Workers must have been struck by the moderation, the cogency and fairness of the arguments presented in the document. All we can get at this time of night is a quarter of an hour in which to put the case. These people, after the treatment that has been meted out to them, are flatly opposed to going to Glasgow. After sitting here all day, is there any reason why that view should not be confirmed in their minds? The Admission Order Office has today provided us with a gallery which has been unusual.
Here we have a situation in which the unions, being cognisant of the fact that certain structural changes would have to be made in the density and the allocation of offices throughout the United Kingdom, were prepared to give their full co-operation in the initial stages to the Minister for him to achieve his object. The unions, through the Whitley Council, were provided with three alternatives. It was held out to


them during the negotiations that the wishes of the Post Office staff would receive every consideration, that consultation would be entered into and that all the factors would be looked at. The various committees nominated by the unions, after visiting the areas concerned, came down not in favour of Glasgow, but, if they had to go anywhere, in favour of Tees-side.

Mr. A. Bourne-Arton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Tomney: The position now is that they do not want to go anywhere. And who can blame them? Most of the workers are Londoners born and bred. Why should they be the physical instrument of the Government's will?
Some very trenchant things are said in the document which has been issued by the unions. One section of the staff was well seized of the position quite early on. I refer to the Society of Civil Servants, which, in a very trenchant passage, said:
The Savings Bank Branch considered that their acceptance of the Government's proposal to disperse the Bank would run directly counter to their National Association policy, would lead to a breach of the traditional neutrality of the Civil Service, and a political decision overriding all other considerations.
The Society could not have been more right, as subsequent events have proved.
The Postmaster-General is responsible for his own Department, but there are many people in the Civil Service unions who are of the opinion—and, on the available evidence, I am with them—that this was taken out of the right hon. Gentleman's hands by the Cabinet and that a Cabinet decision was taken for political reasons.
The Government have got themselves into a mess in the south-east of England, with the wholesale building of offices, the jamming of subways, congestion of traffic and overburdening of all the London services. This is the direct result of Government policy, because here in London is where the offices have been built. There are about 4,000 building workers out of work today in the North-East who could well have been building offices had the Government been so minded. But private industry, under the Location of Offices Bureau, has not wanted to go to

other areas of the country, and the Government now intend to use their power over people in their service to send them there, as an example and in the hope that private industry will follow.
This is a very onerous responsibility for anyone to take. All who know Glasgow know that there are already 72,000 people there on the housing waiting list, Anybody who knows anything about London housing knows that some of these workers have been waiting years for a council flat or house and have only just got one. Anyone who knows anything about this organisation in London knows that the majority of the workers concerned are in the age-group from 35 to 55, people with children at grammar school or taking higher education whose whole future will be affected by the move.
Moreover, everyone knows that the employment of these people does not rate the highest remuneration and, in many cases, wives have had to go out to work to supplement the family income. Is there any guarantee that the same amount of work will be available to the wives in any other part of the country? Certainly not.
All these are factors which impinge on the situation of these workers. But, despite this, the Civil Service unions concerned initially recognised their obligations to the nation. The Minister, on the other hand, did not recognise his obligation to his own staff. As I have said, this is a political decision of the Cabinet.
These people are now opposed to going, and who can blame them?

Mr. Anthony Royle: Is there not another point which the hon. Member has not mentioned? Many of these workers have dependants who rely on them. What is to be the position of these dependants if they have to move up to the North, to Glasgow?

Mr. Tomney: I think that I did refer to them. When speaking of children, I meant to include responsibilities to elderly relatives, too. All these factors impinge on the problem.
There is now acute dismay in the Post Office Savings Bank. The employees and the associations want to know what the


Minister proposes to do. He cannot avoid his Departmental responsibility.
A circular sent out under Whitley Council auspices states that
each move must be the responsibility of the Department concerned, under the ultimate decision of its Minister. This is essential; and nothing can be allowed to detract from departmental responsibility … unless such moves are decided and implemented by the Departments concerned there is no effective way in which the staff concerned can be brought into consultation.
The staff opted for one district, but were told to go to Glasgow. I have tried to outline some of the realities of the situation and I now want to deal with the Government's position. Ever since the Government assumed power in 1951, we have seen a spate of office building and concentration. The upsurge in land values in the South-East and London has been the direct result of their policy. As a consequence, there has been a growing waiting list in London, particularly for houses, and congestion in the schools. Employment possibilities may have been greater than in other parts of the country, but people are now frightened of what the Government's decision will mean to them. If there is not a willing transfer, what will the Minister do?
Only last week, at its conference, the union clearly laid down by resolution, which was passed with acclamation, that implementation of the move should be resisted unless prior guarantee was given on the following conditions:
No compulsion in respect of staff transfers to be imposed upon Grades represented by the Association.
Adequate arrangements made for the transfer out of the Savings Bank of members remaining in London and no opportunity lost of facilitating such transfers immediately vacancies exist in other departments.
Full provision is made to offset possible redundancy in the Sorting Assistant Grade.
What lies behind that resolution? In case the Minister does not know, I will tell him. If the resolution is to be effective, and compulsion is attempted, there must be some sackings for these people. Sackings for people in the 35, 45 and 55 age groups are a matter of real concern, because private industry, with its own pension schemes, is no longer prepared to take anybody in the higher grade of employment, as the

actuarial basis of the pension schemes would be upset.
What will the Minister do about this? Is it possible to absorb these people in London? If not, but if he insists upon transferring them and they do not wish to go, will he dismiss them? These are very real problems to which the people concerned want an answer now. Their lives are centred here in London, and it is patently wrong for the Minister to use his powers as a Departmental Minister, with Cabinet sanction, to transfer these people against their will to other parts of the country.

Mr. Roy Mason: Direction of labour.

Mr. Tomney: I do not know whether the implications for the Post Office itself have been thought out. One would have thought that this service, which is central in London and so important to the nation, should remain sited here.

Mr. William Hannan: Does what my hon. Friend is saying mean that the argument is against a change altogether and that, as some of us suspect, the argument is that the Post Office Savings Bank headquarters should be retained in London and not moved even to Newcastle?

Mr. Tomney: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been listening to me. I said initially that there were three choices and that the staff opted for one by conciliation. That was refused, and the Department has taken another. As far as the people are concerned, this headquarters should remain in London. Because of the real industrial and office problem, it should remain here on the basis of efficiency. Over 500,000 documents arrive daily. Fifty per cent. of the 22 million depositors live in and around London.
I should have liked to have a lot of time for this debate, so that the Minister would have adequate time for his reply.
The Minister can do two things—either go back to the Cabinet and say that he is not prepared to sanction the transfer of the Department to Glasgow, or hold an independent inquiry into all aspects of the matter and find out what the feeling is.
If the Minister moves the Department from London, he will be left with


large premises. What will he do with them? Will he sell them? Will he let them? If he does either of those things, his argument about congestion falls to the ground, and the previous arguments about the Post Office Savings Bank being better sited and more efficient in other parts of the country fall.
This has been done deliberately as a means of relieving Glasgow's unemployment problem and for no other reason. If the Minister continues along the line on which he has started, what does he gain? I ask him to take the matter back to the Cabinet if it has come from there and reverse the decision before it is too late.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I would make a plea on behalf of the people affected, many of whom have written to me and colleagues of mine and put forward a formidable case. Some of them have houses and are just coming towards the end of their mortgages, some have children just about to take their G.C.E., and some have aged relatives dependent on them; and they feel that their roots are in London.
These people must be told exactly where they stand. They must be given some hope of having some sympathetic tribunal before which they can state their case, and, if they are able to make their case, they ought to be allowed to remain in London. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us whether these people will get alternative employment if they stay in London.
I shall not go into the merits of this matter, about which there is great controversy, but I would emphasise that it is a human matter. If a change is to take place, I hope that we shall take care of the people who will, inevitably, be hurt by it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Mr. Bevins.

10.53 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I am very grateful—

Mr. John Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that it might have been desirable that an hon. Mem-

ber from the City of Glasgow, which is very much affected—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be questioning whom I have called. That is not in order. It is within my discretion. I have called the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Bevins: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for rising now, but I have only 13 minutes in which to answer the debate. I hope the House will forgive me if I speak rapidly.
First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) for introducing this subject, although I thought that his speech was both reactionary and distorted. I am sorry that many of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies and, indeed, Glasgow constituencies have not been able to speak. That is not my fault.
This is a very important question. It is important in making its contribution to the solution of London's overcrowding, to the economic well-being of Glasgow and South-West Scotland, and, last but by no means least, to the present staff of the Post Office Savings Bank. It is because these things are important that I am personally replying to the debate.
During the last year I have to make two very difficult decisions, and I apologise for neither of them. The first was whether we should accept the report of Sir Gilbert Flemming that the Post Office Savings Bank should be moved out of London altogether. Our answer to that question was "Yes", and I am sure that that broad decision is supported on both sides of the House. It is true that a very small but very important group of the Bank's staff have not felt able to reconcile themselves to the inevitability of this decision. I am sorry about that. I sympathise with their point of view and with their problems. At the same time, I must emphasise that I am quite certain that it is right to move the Bank out of London. The work does not require to be done in the Metropolis.
The second question was where the Bank should go. This was a much harder decision. We narrowed this choice down to Tees-side, Liverpool and Glasgow. We had to have a place of


sufficient size to ensure an adequate pool of clerical workers. It had to be a good centre for communications. It had to bring, from the national point of view, positive social and economic advantages to wherever it went.
I arranged for representatives of the Bank management and of the staff to visit all three possible locations. It was only after receiving their reports that the Government attempted to balance one place against another. It has been suggested that even at the time that the C.S.C.A. was visiting the three areas the mind of the Government was made up and that the consultations with it were, therefore, a mockery. That is wholly untrue.
Had I been concerned with playing politics, or had I been prejudiced—and Ministers do not play politics in matters where human beings are concerned—my prejudice would not have been for Glasgow, but for Liverpool. The truth is that the view of the staff was a very potent factor—I have always said so—but I made it clear to them all along that it could not be decisive. That would be true whichever party occupied the Treasury Bench. The staff made its views very plain to me at more than one meeting. The Government and I were under no illusion as to what the staff's reaction would be if the decision went against Tees-side.
I am certain that, from the national point of view, the case for sending the Bank to Glasgow is unassailable and I am sure that the Bank will do more benefit to Clydeside than it could possibly have done had it gone to Tees-side. What is very important here—and I am very conscious of it, of course—are natural anxieties of the people who work in the Bank in London at the moment.

Mr. Mason: Mr. Mason rose—

Mr. Bevins: I cannot give way.
I recognise that we are asking for sacrifices from some of our staff, but I want to say clearly that anything that the Post Office, can do, or I can do personally, to relieve their anxieties, or to help them to resolve their problems, will unquestionably be done. I hope that they will forgive me if I say that the picture is nothing like as black as

it has been painted by some people whose motives I entirely respect.
To begin with, the transfer will take 10 years, or even longer, from start to finish and in such a time the solutions to many problems can be found. First, what about the clerical and minor staff who comprise the majority? There are at present 7,000 men and women in these grades and it will be necessary for a small nucleus of them to go to Glasgow to help to set up the new organisation there. But this nucleus will be very small indeed.
My advisers have been re-examining this problem and they tell me that it will suffice if we are able to move only about 300—less than one in 20—of these men and women out of London.

Mr. Tomney: Mr. Tomney rose—

Mr. Bevins: No. The hon. Member has distorted this matter quite sufficiently.

Mr. Tomney: Mr. Tomney rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat if the Minister does not give way.

Mr. Bevins: I am trying to put this in perspective. My advisers have told me that, out of the total staff of clerical and minor workers of 7,000, only 300 will be required to move to Glasgow.
These moves will be phased over a considerable number of years. Therefore I hope that, in this section, which comprises the biggest part of the staff, we shall succeed in avoiding compulsory transfers and also—and this is important—in placing the vast majority of these men and women either in other departments of the Post Office or in other Government Departments. That should not be excessively difficult, because the annual intake of clerical workers into the Civil Service in London is far greater than the Savings Bank annual wastage.
I agree at once that the situation is not likely to be so easy for the executive and controlling staff of the Bank, who number about 500 to 600, as opposed to the 7,000 in all. By the time the move takes place, some of these ladies and gentlemen will have retired, or will be near to retirement, and it would be obviously unreasonable to expect them to move against their wishes at that time of life. But I must be frank with the House and say that we cannot hope to recruit


local staff to take the place of all these experienced men and women, and that the presence of most of them in Glasgow will, I think, be essential for the success of the operation. Even so, the first wave of transfers of senior staff will probably take place towards the end of 1965, and will comprise only about 10 per cent. of the total number I have just mentioned.
I should like to give the House a very firm assurance that the Post Office will do everything it possibly can to ensure that, both with the junior staff, the clerical staff, and with the senior executives, no avoidable hardship arises. I shall invite other members of my staff in the Post Office who would like to go to Glasgow—and I am sure that there are many Scots in the Post Office in London who would like to go to Glasgow—to transfer in advance of the move and to take the place of any in the Bank who would be hard hit for personal reasons by a transfer. I shall, as far as possible, see that the first wave is made up of volunteers. I shall set up special machinery to examine any special or personal domestic difficulties which members of the staff may put forward, and we shall do all this in consultation with the staff associations.
What I have said I have said in perfect good faith. There should be very little difficulty with the majority of the junior staff. So far as the senior staff is concerned, we shall help as far as we can to avoid family hardship.
I urge the House to bear in mind that there are really three questions here. First of all, is it right that the Bank should move out of London? The answer to that question is, I believe, an unhesitating "Yes". Secondly, is it right that the Bank should move to Glasgow? The case for that on social and economic grounds is overwhelming. Thirdly, will the Post Office do all that it humanly can, as it should, to prevent hardship to any person who works in the Post Office Savings Bank down here? To that, I can give the House my personal pledge that we shall stop at nothing to see that justice is done—so far as we possibly can—to every individual member of the Bank.

Mr. Mason: Not wanting to be embroiled in the argument between Scotland and the North-East, I would like to ask the Postmaster-General a question

I tried to pose to him during the course of his speech. To what extent will the move to Glasgow impair the operational efficiency of the Bank itself? To what extent will there be a loss of service and business to the joint stock banks and the trustee savings banks, having in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) said, that this has really been a political decision by a weak Postmaster-General who has suffered at the hands of the Cabinet on more than one occasion?
Also, knowing of the imminence of a Labour Government who favour the introduction of a giro service into the Post Office, will it not be more difficult for a giro service to be introduced in that part of the country than anywhere else?

Mr. Bevins: By leave of the House, to answer, first, the second question of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), when he has finished squabbling with his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), every decision taken by a Government is, in the nature of things, a political decision. But if the hon. Gentleman is implying that the decision to move to Glasgow was taken on grounds of narrow party advantage, he is wildly wide of the mark. It was taken on grounds of national interest and no other.
On the operational side, we all realise that when the bulk of the Bank's business is transacted in the South of England, the Greater London area and the Home Counties, there are bound to be marginal disadvantages in moving the Bank to any other place, Tees-side, Liverpool, Bolton, or anywhere else far from London. But my advisers have taken the view throughout that if the Bank moved to Glasgow, any loss of efficiency would be highly marginal and that they would not be disturbed about it.

Mr. A. Royle: May I ask my right hon. Friend one short question?

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.